Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — National Lottery

Dr. Ian Gibson: What assessment his Department has made of the impact of the changes to the national lottery introduced by the National Lottery Act 1998. [119872]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The changes in the 1998 Act reflect the Government's commitment to ensuring that lottery money gets to where it is needed. The strategic plans that distributors are obliged to produce under the Act place a high priority on targeting areas of social and economic deprivation, and new powers of delegation mean that decisions are now being taken at a more local level.

Dr. Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, in the past few days, there has been discussion about delivering the funds and making life better for people and that the changes in the lottery fund have done just that? They have brought confidence to people with cancer because of the provision of radiotherapy machines; they have brought our crazy brilliant young scientists money to try out their ideas and they have thrown money at the right areas of sport. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest success has been in cities, such as Norwich, where funds have been put into areas of great deprivation so that the young and the old alike can indulge in pursuits that give them confidence and optimism for the future?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, we promised the electorate that we would make such changes when we went to the country in the general election. I am very pleased that we have now put those promises into action. None of the things that have happened—the establishment of the new opportunities fund, the ability to solicit applications from areas that need them, the ability to establish joint schemes between distributors, the fairer geographical spread that is now coming through and,

above all, the focus on areas of social deprivation—would have been possible without the changes that we introduced in the 1998 Act.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Whatever the merits of the new opportunities fund—I note what the Secretary of State has just said about the promises made before the previous election—is it not in total contrast to what the Prime Minister said about the lottery fund when he was Leader of the Opposition? He said that he did not
believe that it would be right to use lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities.

Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to say that when he did and it remains the Government's clearly stated policy; it is what we are doing. Lottery funds are used for things that are additional to the core responsibilities of government; they do not replace Government expenditure.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that the Library has produced a fine research document on where lottery money is spent. In many constituencies, £30 million, £40 million or £50 million is spent on lottery tickets, but much less is returned to those communities—between £2 million and £5 million. In the light of that, does he feel that there should be a stronger community element in a new lottery Act?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to identify a discrepancy, which is partly due to the fact that only 28p out of every £1 spent on lottery tickets comes back to any of the good causes established. The average figure per constituency of spending on good causes by lottery distributors is about £10 million, but I am well aware that many constituencies have not reached that level of expenditure. I can fully understand the anxiety that colleagues on both sides of the House have in ensuring that a fair share of lottery money is spent across the country as a whole. In that respect, I welcome the fact that, over the past year, the number of small grants made by lottery distributors has doubled, because that means that more money reaches the grass roots and local communities everywhere across the country.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I seem to remember that the Secretary of State's constituency does rather well out of the lottery.
Is not the centrepiece of the Government's changes to the lottery the creation of the new opportunities fund, which is the Government's lottery fund? Does the Secretary of State think that it is doing all right because, of the £540 million that it has so far received, it has to date paid out only £61 million? That means that, effectively, the Government are sitting on £480 million worth of lottery players' money. What is the explanation for that? Is it that there is a lack of projects, which I doubt; is it incompetent bureaucracy, which is entirely possible; or are we dealing with a slush fund that was deliberately and cynically created to buy back failing support in the run-up to a general election? After last Thursday, I think that we can all guess the answer.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman's questions get more unbelievable every month. The new opportunities fund


has already embarked on its out-of-school education and child care initiative, for which £400 million is earmarked. It has also embarked on its information communications technology training and content creation for teachers and its health living centres programme, for each of which £300 million has been earmarked, and its cancer prevention, treatment and care initiative, for which £150 million has been earmarked. Detailed bidding for the green spaces and sustainable communities initiative and the access to lifelong learning initiative is about to begin.
All those are at the core of the new opportunities fund mission to provide projects related to health, education and the environment, and have been welcomed in constituencies throughout the country. The Tories are effectively telling the nation that they would scrap after-school clubs, healthy living centres and initiatives on cancer prevention, treatment and care if they got back into government.

Oral Answers to Questions — Tourism

Mr. David Kidney: What action his Department is taking to promote environmentally sustainable tourism. [119873]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The Government's strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", published in February 1999, places sustainability at its core and seeks to integrate the economic, social and environmental implications of tourism.

Mr. Kidney: I recall my hon. Friend coming to Stafford last year to launch the borough council's strategy for tourism, and I thank her very much for that. I am aware of how much good work her Department does to promote the maximising of the economic advantages of tourism while preventing environmental harm to the attractions themselves, and more widely. What is my hon. Friend's Department doing to persuade others such as councils, tourism organisations and private owners to have a similarly high regard for sustainability?

Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right, and I congratulate him and Stafford borough council on the work that they are doing in that area.
It is important to get the balance right. Tourism is the fastest growing industry in the world and we want our fair share of it. However, we want to ensure that future generations, too, can avail themselves of such opportunities. I hope that the strategy paper that the English Tourism Council's task force is producing this autumn will give councils throughout the country good advice on that matter.

Mr. John Greenway: Does the Minister agree that uninhibited access to environmentally sensitive countryside can sometimes do immense damage to the attractiveness of the very landscape that visitors and tourists want to enjoy, and can threaten wildlife and conservation? Clearly, there is consensus on the need for a balance. However, will the Minister join me in urging her ministerial colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to listen to the concerns of Britain's 4 million anglers and reject a Labour

Back-Bench proposal to allow an unrestricted right of access to all river banks and fisheries, which would be extremely damaging to the sport of fishing, as well as fish stocks and other wildlife?

Janet Anderson: That is not a matter for my Department. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the sustainable tourism component of our strategy has been informed by our consultation document, "Tourism—towards sustainability", which formed part of the wider consultation conducted by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on updating the United Kingdom's sustainable development strategy. That represented the first ever attempt by Government to consult on such a scale.

Oral Answers to Questions — Film Industry

Mr. Gordon Prentice: How many Indian-produced films were made in the UK in the last 12 months for which figures are available; what benefits accrued to the UK film industry; and if he will make a statement. [119874]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): Two Indian-produced films were made in the UK in the last 12 months. The UK film industry benefits directly from the production budget spent on the use of UK crew and facilities.

Mr. Prentice: That was an interesting reply. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that Bollywood annually produces about 600 films, rivalling Hollywood. Given the creativity and talent in Britain, what can the Government do to encourage the growth of our indigenous film industry?

Janet Anderson: I assure my hon. Friend that the Film Council, which was established by the Government and launched last Monday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the greatly respected director Alan Parker, will do much to help. Of course, the Government introduced tax breaks in 1997 and a new definition of British film, making it much more attractive to film in the UK.
That said, the British Tourist Authority and the British Film Commission have recently visited India to learn more about the Indian film industry, which produces about 900 films every year, and encourage the making of Indian productions here.

Oral Answers to Questions — Tourism (Millennium Projects)

Mrs. Betty Williams: What assessment he has made of the impact of millennium projects on the tourism industry. [119876]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Evidence so far is encouraging: for example, Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh has already attracted more than 440,000 visitors, far exceeding expectations; the millennium stadium in Cardiff was the centrepiece of the Rugby world cup; and Tate Modern, which opens this week, has attracted enormous international interest. In addition, the huge number of new


environmental projects, such as the Sustrans millennium cycle way and the National Botanic Gardens of Wales, are proving attractive components of the BTA's latest marketing campaign, "Green Britain".

Mrs. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, is he aware that £390,000 of Millennium Commission money has helped to fund the restoration of the Urdd Gobaith Cymru centre for young people in Glanllyn, Bala, which can cater for 9,000 young people every year? Although I welcome the news about the National Botanic Gardens of Wales and the millennium stadium in Cardiff, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how such major projects, which are so far away from tourist areas such as my constituency, can help us?

Mr. Smith: I am aware of the vast number of smaller, local projects that the Millennium Commission has helped to fund in many parts of the country, including, I am pleased to say, in some parts of north Wales. The siting in Cardiff of the millennium stadium was a decision taken by the Welsh rugby authorities, not one imposed on them by the Millennium Commission, but it would have been difficult to understand if the site of Cardiff Arms Park had not been chosen to be the new national stadium of Wales. However, we need to ensure that north Wales, especially the tourist areas, benefit as much as possible, not only from Millennium Commission money, but from lottery money in general. Through the directions that we have issued to the lottery distributors, we shall ensure that that occurs.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the Herriot museum in Thirsk on being nominated for a tourism award? Will he support attempts to attract as much millennium funding as possible for tourism projects that are sited outside capital cities, such as London or Cardiff?

Mr. Smith: I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the museum on its award. Many of the millennium projects that are being supported are located outside capital cities. There are 14 or 15 landmark projects, receiving many millions of pounds from the Millennium Commission; they are not located exclusively in London, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast—although each of those cities contains major millennium projects—but are spread around the country, and I am pleased about that.

Mr. Syd Rapson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having a first-class team around him? I am grateful for the recent visit made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting to Portsmouth to see our magnificent Gunwharf scheme, which will regenerate the economy and create more than 3,000 jobs. Although we have not yet got a tower built, we hope that my right hon. Friend will do all he can to assist us. I also hope that I will be joined by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) in promoting the city, not denigrating it, as he has done on many occasions.

Mr. Smith: The millennium project in Portsmouth is an excellent one: much of it is already under way and is beginning to show fruit. The Portsmouth scheme would

have been a perfect example to cite in connection with the question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh): it is located, not in a capital city, but in a major city that can benefit from its regenerative effect. I look forward to the tower taking its place in the scheme, and we all hope that that will happen.

Oral Answers to Questions — Millennium Dome

Miss Julie Kirkbride: How many visitors there have been to the millennium dome to date; and by how many the visitor numbers have varied from the original estimates. [119877]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): As the hon. Lady knows, the New Millennium Experience Company produced a revised annual target of 10 million, following reassessment of the business plan in late 1999-early 2000. Actual attendance achieved to date is 2.1 million.

Miss Kirkbride: The Minister's answer shows how difficult it is for Ministers to put a new Labour spin on the disappointing number of visitors that the millennium dome has attracted, despite the £750,000 million that has been spent on the project. As she knows, the industry's estimates are that the dome will attract only between 6 million and 7 million visitors this year, yet the business plan projects 10 million. How will those people be attracted to the dome? Can the Minister guarantee those figures by the end of the year?

Janet Anderson: As the hon. Lady may recall, the project was started by her party when it was in government. However, I do not share her scepticism. The dome received its two millionth visitor on 28 April, and by June it is expected to beat the 1999 visitor attendance record for all UK paying attractions. That means that the dome is the most popular tourist attraction in the country, and we are very proud of it.

Dr. Brian Iddon: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that our town, Bolton, is visiting the dome in force this Thursday, and that she is welcome to join us. Is it not important that the children and people of Bolton visit the dome, to see the superb steel superstructure that originated in that town, and one of the largest turntables ever manufactured in this country, which is being used in the dome? Has my hon. Friend calculated the impact that the building of the dome has had on local economies, such as that of Bolton? I mention as an example the fact that the children and parents will have to be transported to the dome.

Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right. The investment in the millennium dome has a huge halo effect right round the country. I believe that the steel that was used in the construction of the dome came from my hon. Friend's constituency—from Watson Steel of Bolton. I am glad that he is taking an interest and supporting the dome, and I am sure that his constituents will have as good a day in the dome on their town day as I did when


I was at the dome on bank holiday Monday. I wonder how many Opposition Members have taken the trouble to visit the dome to give it their support.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: No amount of spin can hide the fact that the dome is an embarrassing fiasco. Bearing in mind that it is already £100 million over its published budget, what guarantee can the Minister give the House that the dome will not need further money in the future? If and when another bid for cash is made, will she have a word with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? We need to establish what role he will be playing—will he be the chairman of the Millennium Commission, custodian of lottery players' money, or will he be in the role of Labour Minister desperate for political reasons alone to keep the dome afloat?

Janet Anderson: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman should use the House once again to denigrate the dome. He refers to it as an embarrassing fiasco. On the one hand, he pretends to support it, and on the other, he uses such language. He knows that every application to the commission for an increase in grant is considered on its merits, according to the commission's policy and criteria. The management of any project that has applied for an increase in grant will tell him that it is not an easy process.
I remind the House that in response to an application from NMEC—the New Millennium Experience Company—in early February, the commission agreed to provide a further grant of up to £60 million to assist the company with its cashflow requirements, subject to detailed appraisals and to the company demonstrating to the commission's satisfaction the need for those funds. To date, £55 million has been released by the commission, following such appraisals. Grant made to NMEC is subject to repayment from any operational surplus or asset disposal achieved.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my hon. Friend the Minister recall that in the weeks preceding the general election, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was then Deputy Prime Minister, begged and beseeched the Labour party to commit itself to the millennium dome—a project that the Conservative party had initiated? Does not that put into perspective the tosh and brazen opportunism that the Conservative party employs on the issue? Instead of willing the dome to fail, Conservative Members should highlight the fact that 80 per cent. of those who visit it believe that it constitutes an extremely good day out. Having been to the dome, I can vouch for that.

Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right; 84 per cent. of people have been satisfied with their visit and 70 per cent. believe that the dome is good value for money. I was there on bank holiday Monday, when almost 35,000 people visited. I saw a family whose daughter pleaded with her father to bring her back as soon as possible. That does not sound like failure. It is high time that Conservative Members got behind the national project and supported Great Britain plc.

Oral Answers to Questions — Football Task Force

Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the proposals to deal with marketing by professional sports clubs and national teams advanced by the football task force. [119879]

The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am considering the football task force's report—both the majority and minority reports—on commercial issues, and I expect to announce the Government's response shortly.

Mr. Heath: I declare an interest as the father of a soccer-mad nine-year-old. Cannot something be done about national clubs and bodies that change football strips every year and cynically exploit youngsters through overpriced replica strips? Is not it time to stop that rip-off?

Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the task force was much exercised about that issue, which is worrying for all parents and children. We hope that the football authorities and the clubs—especially premier league clubs—which are responsible for what can only be termed abuse, have learned from that. When we make our final decision, some of the task force's recommendations will help to ensure that such abuse cannot continue.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I am sure that the Minister will join me, the House and my constituents in Rotherham in sending condolences to the family of Terry Coles, who lost his life so tragically at Rotherham this weekend. I was at the match, and what should have been a festival of football as both teams won promotion was overshadowed by a dreadful tragedy.
Perhaps the Minister would care to reflect on three points. First, we need a swift inquiry. I hope that she will ask the Home Office to press the Police Complaints Authority to get on with the job quickly. Police horses had to come on to the pitch as hooligans from both sides ran on to disrupt the match. I was glad that the police were there. Policemen and women in Rotherham serve the community well.
Secondly, will the Minister consider money in football, and ensure that some of it goes to poorer clubs at the bottom of the divisions to ensure that they can grant access to fans and thus prevent such a tragedy from happening again?
Thirdly, will the Minister consider setting up an independent commission so that tense matches, where trouble is expected, can be moved to a neutral venue? No amount of passion about football justifies the loss of a single human life.

Kate Hoey: I am sure that the House wishes to send condolences to Mr. Coles' family. It was a tragic incident. As my hon. Friend knows, the Police Complaints Authority is already investigating the events, and it would therefore not be right for me to make a statement on the matter at this stage.

Mr. Nigel Evans: As someone who was born in Swansea and lived there for 33 years, I add my condolences to the family on their tragic loss.
Not long ago, the Football Association of Wales held an international for which it deliberately reduced the price of admission to encourage more families to attend. It was a tremendous success; the mood was markedly buoyant and there was little trouble. Could the Minister encourage the Football Association to reconsider its pricing policy to encourage more families to visit football stadiums throughout the country?

Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is right that the more we get young people, children and families into football grounds, the more it changes the atmosphere. Although I now refer to a different sport, I was impressed by the behaviour and the general family feel when I attended the rugby league final at Murrayfield recently. Football could learn from that example.

Oral Answers to Questions — Cricket

Mr. James Clappison: What steps he is taking to promote the competitiveness of English cricket in international competitions. [119880]

The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): Although I am not personally responsible for the results of the England cricket team, I am keen to promote its international competitiveness. I want to encourage more youngsters to play cricket and to have the opportunity to reach the top in sport. I am working closely with the England and Wales Cricket Board to ensure that that takes place.

Mr. Clappison: Does the Minister agree that it is in the interests of the competitiveness and integrity of English cricket and that in the rest of the world for those involved in the game at every level to support Lord MacLaurin's efforts to get to the bottom of the various allegations of match fixing? Moreover, is not that in the interests of the cricket-supporting public, who pay good money to go to matches, and all the decent, honest cricketers who have done nothing to deserve having the finger of suspicion pointed at them?

Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is right. Clearly, anyone who cares about cricket and plays it or who is involved with any sport, cannot fail to be deeply concerned at the suggestions of match fixing in cricket. I welcome Lord MacLaurin's initiative to bring together the executive board of the International Cricket Council, which met recently on 2 and 3 May, and the recommendations that it has made. It is absolutely crucial to the future of cricket to ensure that the public have confidence in the results of future matches. I hope that the measures that the council and we in this country are taking, and will continue to take, will mean that people can be confident about those results.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that if we have a great Lancashire team, we have a great England cricket team. We should emphasise that there are many clubs in villages and towns throughout Lancashire and some great cricketing leagues. What help and financial support can be given to ensure that the youngsters at those cricket clubs are successful?

Kate Hoey: The board is well aware that, if it does not ensure that more youngsters become involved at an

early age, it is much more unlikely that we shall have talented cricketers playing at the top or for talented and competitive English teams. The board is providing more support and has ensured that some of the money that it received from the sale of television rights has filtered down to exactly the level to which my hon. Friend refers. We want that to be encouraged. Of course money is needed at the top so that our most talented cricketers can achieve world-class performance and we need a cricket academy—the board is working on that—but we must ensure that the money at the top reaches down to where is it really needed—the grass roots.

Oral Answers to Questions — Arts Organisations

Mr. Steve McCabe: If he will ensure that arts organisations benefiting from public funds make unsold tickets available for use by schools. [119881]

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): We are introducing a requirement that every arts organisation in receipt of public funds should have an access policy for young people that includes an element of free or concessionary tickets.

Mr. McCabe: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome the increase in funding for the West Midland Arts Board from £6 million last year to nearly £11 million this year. Surely that increase and the new three-year funding deal can only make it easier for theatres and other arts organisations to extend access to all sections of the community. Will he consider requiring publicly funded organisations to make available unsold tickets to schools and youth groups?

Mr. Howarth: I welcome what my hon. Friend says. Having met members of West Midland Arts Board on several occasions, I know how committed it is to ensuring that public funding should carry with it the right to better public access for the many, not just the few. On his specific recommendation, we would stop short of compulsion, but we certainly encourage arts and other supportive organisations to ensure that no tickets are wasted and that such opportunities are taken up.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that enlightened arts organisations would regard making available concessionary and free tickets as a sensible contribution not only to educational development, but to the building of their future audiences? Does he recognise that the possibilities for making such a move extend beyond publicly funded companies and bodies? Will he invite the regional arts consortiums, which he has been instrumental in establishing, to ask the education authorities and arts bodies in their areas to introduce schemes and to approach the individuals who could make a difference?

Mr. Howarth: I appreciate the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's question. Some admirable arts organisations already use imaginative means to ensure better access to the arts, especially for young people. We have ring-fenced £5 million for the Arts Council to use as a new audiences fund to pilot initiatives, and those that show particular promise will be the beginning of a further process.
The Sheffield theatre's "pay what you can" scheme is a marvellous example, and I pay tribute to Lord and Lady Hamlyn for their imaginative and remarkable generosity in enabling people who have never had the opportunity to go to the theatre to do so.
The regional cultural consortia to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have this task in their sights, and in any case we are specifying it in the funding agreements that we are negotiating with arts organisations in receipt of public funds.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I support the general principle of what the Minister has said, but does he accept that allowing access to young people can sometimes be difficult for small theatres? I have in mind the Hill Ridware theatre, just north of Lichfield. It is a successful theatre, but has only 60 to 70 seats in a converted church. The Minister may be aware that it recently applied for a grant, but was refused because it could not allow access to young children under the specialist arrangements that he has spoken about. Could he advise the arts bodies and lottery councils concerned not to apply the rules in a fixed way, and to take account of size and of the practicality of such arrangements in a small theatre?

Mr. Howarth: I do not know all the circumstances of the theatre in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but the Arts Council and the regional arts boards that distribute money on behalf of the taxpayer need to adopt suitable, sensitive and flexible approaches to particular theatres.

Oral Answers to Questions — Spoliation Panel

Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement about the work of the spoliation panel. [119882]

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): On Thursday 13 April, I was delighted to announce the membership and terms of reference of the spoliation advisory panel. For those who may be unfamiliar with the jargon, I should explain that the Government have set up the panel with the aim of providing an alternative to litigation, and to facilitate a just resolution of claims made for cultural objects that may have been looted in the Nazi era between 1933 and 1945. The Government are determined to set an example of how a civilised society should conduct itself in making possible redress for historic wrongs committed during the Nazi era, including the looting of cultural objects.

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Many of the claimants are now elderly and infirm, like Mr. Felix Davis, whose painting of Hampton Court is presently in the Tate gallery. I understand that there is not a great deal of dispute now between him and the Tate. Will the Minister use his best endeavours to ensure that the spoliation panel cracks on with its work to settle the claims as quickly as possible? If it turns out that its powers are not sufficiently strong, will he review them to see if they need to be strengthened?

Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I appreciate my hon. Friend's sensitive and determined advocacy of this issue. The answer to the questions that he puts to me is yes.

Mr. John Bercow: Further to the first report of the national museum directors conference, can the Minister tell the House how many cultural objects and works of art have so far been shown to be of unknown provenance? What representations has he or the spoliation panel already received about them? Can he give the House some idea about the speed with which properly completed applications can be processed, so that the works of art looted by the Nazis can be returned as soon as possible to their rightful owners?

Mr. Howarth: The national museum directors conference has identified hundreds of cultural objects whose provenance in the Nazi era between 1933 and 1945 contains some element of uncertainty. However, it does not follow that they were all looted objects. Indeed, only one clear-cut claim has so far been made to a national collection, and that concerns the work to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) just referred—the Jan Griffier painting "View of Hampton Court Palace", which is in the Tate.
I can give the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) my absolute assurance- that we are encouraging the spoliation advisory panel to act as rapidly as it can in examining the principles that ought to apply, and the specific rights and wrongs of the case that has been referred to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Wembley Stadium

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on the future of Wembley stadium. [119883]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The new Wembley stadium will be one of the finest football and rugby stadiums in the world. I look forward to its being the centrepiece of England's staging of the 2006 world cup.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Secretary of State agree that the whole Wembley redevelopment scheme has been subject to dither and delay? That is shown not least by a report in The Daily Telegraph last Saturday that his officials were desperately negotiating with Brent council on who was to pay the £13 million redistribution and transport link costs. Will he now step in personally and take charge of the whole project to clear up the mess, so that our bid to host the world cup in 2006 is not prejudiced?

Mr. Smith: I refer the hon. Gentleman to a statement issued last Friday by the leader of Brent council, Paul Daisley, who said:
Following detailed discussions with all the key parties involved with the development of the new stadium at Wembley, I am increasingly confident that my officers will soon be in a position to prepare a report for our planning committee which recommends approval for the stadium planning application.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Councillor Daisley


and the officers of Brent council? They have trodden an extremely careful path in ensuring not only that the stadium development will go ahead as we all wish, but that the relevant section 106 moneys for the regeneration of the local area, and for the provision of a safe transport infrastructure for fans, will be provided. As my right hon. Friend has just said, that seems set to happen: planning permission will be given on the 15th. Will he join me in congratulating all who have worked so hard for so long to ensure that it does happen?

Mr. Smith: I do indeed join my hon. Friend in congratulating, in particular, Councillor Daisley and the team at Brent.
In all such cases there is, of course, a difficult negotiation to be undertaken between developers and local authorities rightly seeking planning gain. In this instance, the details have been very important, but what Brent has sought to achieve—rightly and understandably, in my view—is not only the development of a new stadium, but proper regeneration of the surrounding area and a good transport infrastructure so that people can travel to and from the stadium.

Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Secretary of State agree that Wembley stadium is arguably the most famous soccer stadium in the world, and certainly the venue for this country's greatest sporting achievement? Can he assure us that once the vandalism has taken place and the new stadium has been erected, football supporters will not be sitting in their coaches two hours after the final whistle, as happened after the Worthington cup final?
What about the infrastructure? There is no guarantee that the new Wembley will be any better than the old Wembley when it comes to getting there and back.

Mr. Smith: The whole point of the discussions that have been under way during the past few months between Brent and Wembley stadium is to ensure that such an eventuality is avoided. I have every confidence that the new Wembley will be even better than the old.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: A few moments ago, the Minister for Sport referred to the success of the rugby league cup final held at Murrayfield a couple of weeks ago. That final is, of course, normally held at Wembley. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Wembley authorities to reflect on the success of that match, away from Wembley? In recent years, many rugby league supporters have felt exploited by Wembley, by the south of England and by London. By contrast, they were made very welcome in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland. The efforts that were made to ensure that a match could be played, although the pitch was 3 ft under water only two days before the final, were remarkable—but most remarkable of all was the fact that the match was played on a rugby union ground. A couple of years ago, that would have been unheard of.

Mr. Smith: The decision on the location of the rugby league cup final is entirely for the rugby league authorities. I hope that they will not ignore the prospect

of coming, at least from time to time, to the new Wembley stadium once it is constructed, because I enjoyed a rugby league cup final at Wembley very much.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I hope that the general rejoicing is not premature. On 2 May, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), the Minister for Sport admitted that Ministers had been aware of Brent council's concerns over infrastructure
for more than two years.
She also admitted that, astonishingly, no one from her Department had bothered to discuss those problems with either Transport or Environment Ministers. She said that they were a matter for the Wembley task force, so what has the task force been doing? I quote her again:
No recommendations, views or proposals have been submitted by the Task Force to the Department.—[Official Report, 2 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 17-18W.]
I know that Wembley has become a byword for ministerial incompetence, but is it not breathtaking that for more than two years, the Government did nothing to address the problems that have, to this day, threatened the very survival of that national project? Is that their idea of supporting Great Britain plc?

Mr. Smith: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, who was, I understand, a parliamentary private secretary in the previous Government. He does not understand the basic principle that Ministers in a Department cannot and should not intervene in planning decisions that may fall to the Deputy Prime Minister, as Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to determine in his semi-judicial capacity. That is the reason for the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport gave.

Oral Answers to Questions — Tourism

Mr. Nigel Waterson: What proposals he has to assist English tourist resorts. [119884]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): Many resorts have been included in the UK's proposals for the new objective 2 structural funds and assisted areas map. In addition, the English Tourism Council has set up a resorts task force, which is due to report in December with a programme of action to assist resorts with their regeneration strategies.

Mr. Waterson: Is not it the case that all the Government have done for English seaside resorts is to cut their grants and swamp them with red tape, and to abolish the English Tourist Board? Does that not in large measure explain why only last Thursday, in places as different as Torbay, Plymouth, Great Yarmouth, Blackpool, Southend—and, indeed, Eastbourne—the Government and their Liberal Democrat lackeys were resoundingly rejected?

Janet Anderson: I urge the hon. Gentleman to take the advice of the Conservative leader of the new ruling group in Rossendale, who said that there may have been one or two switches on Thursday, but not enough to make a difference at the general election.
In direct response to the hon. Gentleman's question, I remind him that it is the present Government who have taken steps to help seaside resorts, through single regeneration budget funding, through objective 2 and through the assisted areas map. I believe that this is the first time that any Government have given such priority to resorts; it is no wonder that so many of them are now represented by Labour Members.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is to be a real renaissance in seaside resorts throughout the country, building on the Government's extra help for those resorts, we need an urgent review of transportation corridors to places such as Scarborough—for example, the A64? What representations has she been able to make to Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on that subject?

Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend will recall that on 1 March my Department held a tourism summit with Ministers from Departments throughout the Government—the first time that such a meeting had ever taken place. It was intended to ensure that tourism was put at the heart of government, and my hon. Friend's point is exactly the sort of issue that we raised with the DETR. We look forward to further discussions with that Department.

Mr. Ian Bruce: At the weekend I was fortunate to have with me a group of Russian parliamentarians, who came to see our tourism product, but also had the chance of seeing our local elections. They were of course delighted with tourism in Dorset, but were somewhat surprised by the Labour party's near annihilation in the local elections. Could the reason for Labour's election performance be that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has not been providing for places such as Weymouth, Portland and Purbeck grants to encourage tourism, which I know that the Minister supports? Will she please talk urgently to Environment Ministers to ensure that grant to encourage tourism is provided to local authorities—so that, for example, public toilets can be kept open?

Janet Anderson: As I said to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), this Government have done a great deal more than any previous Government to promote tourism. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's Russian friends enjoyed their visit to the United Kingdom. They will find that, increasingly, the United Kingdom has a quality tourism product that offers people value for money. No wonder so many people want to visit this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the
Church Commissioners, was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Hunting With Hounds

Mr. Gordon Prentice: If hunting with hounds is allowed on Church-owned land; and if he will make a statement. [119902]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Commissioners' long-standing policy is that we allow our tenants to decide for themselves whether to allow hunts on the land which they rent from us.

Mr. Prentice: That is a very disappointing reply. Why does the Church sit on the fence on this very controversial issue? The Church of England is this country's third largest landowner, yet it prevaricates. Is the Church really neutral on the issue of killing for fun? Is it okay to kill for fun?

Mr. Bell: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his questions. The Commissioners recognise that, both inside the Church and out, there are widely varying and strongly held views on the subject, and that all of those deserve the Commissioners' respect. However, we have existing tenancies that may not be altered unilaterally. Although it may be possible to make provisions on the matter in new tenancies, enforcement of a ban on hunting would be difficult and could undermine our relationships with tenants.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Church Commissioners, on behalf of their tenants, have given evidence to the Burns committee on the continuation and beneficial effects on the countryside of hunting?

Mr. Bell: I cannot now give that confirmation to the hon. Lady, but I should be happy to look the matter up and send her a written reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission
was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Government Resources and Accounts Bill

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What assessment he has made of the effect of the implementation of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill on the work of the Commission. [119903]

Mr. John Bercow: What assessment he has made of the effect of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill on the work of the National Audit Office. [119904]

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Public Accounts Commission is responsible for examining the annual estimates of the National Audit Office. The Commission has considered the growing work load of the office, and has approved an additional £1.3 million for 2000–01. That is partly to cover introduction of resource accounting, as set out in the Government Resources and Accounts Bill. The Bill places on the Comptroller and Auditor General a duty to audit and account for the whole of the Government. As the legislation is not expected to come into force until 2005, it is too early to say what its resource implications will be.
With the Public Accounts Committee, I have made it clear that the Bill requires improvements in relation to the scrutiny of public spending. The improvements dealing with the CAG's access and the audit of executive non-departmental public bodies would involve no net cost increase.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that detailed reply. Does he agree that it is essential that after enactment of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, parliamentary scrutiny of the money supply and our auditing process will be at least as good as, if not better than, they are now? Does he therefore share my concern that, by the deadline at the end of last year, only 14 of 53 Government accounts were available for audit? Will he ensure, via the Public Accounts Commission, that all possible resources necessary to ensure an orderly transition are granted?

Mr. Sheldon: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that the Bill be improved in several ways, particularly in providing the same rights of access to public spending as the Government have with their own Departments. The CAG should validate the new departmental performance estimates as well. The hon. Gentleman's work for the Public Accounts Committee and the commission is, therefore, well supported generally.

Mr. Bercow: I welcome the fact that all 19 non-departmental public bodies established since 1997 are to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it remains wholly unsatisfactory that just under 60 public bodies, spending approximately £2 billion of taxpayers' money, are not so audited? Does he agree that the CAG should have access to, and the opportunity to audit, all such bodies, as in Scotland, and that the proposed amendments to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill would facilitate the speedy achievement of that important objective?

Mr. Sheldon: Obviously, I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a matter for the House of Commons, which must understand that the CAG and the National Audit Office produce their accounts on behalf of Parliament as a whole. Members of Parliament should support the work of the commission and the Public Accounts Committee in ensuring that there is proper accountability in the Bill.

Mr. David Rendel: In what year does the right hon. Gentleman expect funding for the National Audit Office to increase to take into consideration the whole of the Government accounts, and how much does he expect the increase to be?

Mr. Sheldon: As we are talking about 2005, it is too early to say. There should be no increase in the cost of auditing the accounts, because they are handled in different ways and there will be an adjustment to ensure that the cost is roughly comparable. For further assessments, we will have to wait for further definitions of what will be involved in 2005 and thereafter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the
Church Commissioners, was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Redundant Churches

Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the conditions relating to the disposal of redundant churches. [119905]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Commissioners normally impose covenants on a new owner restricting the use of the property to that approved and prohibiting unauthorised architectural changes, the disturbance of any human remains or memorials, and demolition.

Mr. Paterson: Is the Church under any moral obligation to sell a redundant church to the existing congregation, should they wish to buy it?

Mr. Bell: The policy of the Church in relation to redundant churches is well known under the pastoral measure. The Commissioners' approval is required for any purchase of a church. Any change of use would also be a matter for the Church.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, especially in London, many redundant churches are sold and become unavailable to the community? They are often sold to property developers and end up as luxury housing, and any conditions that may have been imposed by the Church Commissioners are not adhered to. Will he ask the Commissioners to ensure that redundant churches that are to be put to religious or community use remain accessible to the community as a whole, and that those that are to be used for housing become affordable, accessible housing, which will end some of the problems of housing inequality in London?

Mr. Bell: Any proposal for a change of use from that already agreed with the Church Commissioners would have to be approved by the Commissioners and would be judged on its merits, but with particular regard to its suitability. About 880 churches have been appropriated for other uses. If my hon. Friend is thinking of a specific church, I would be glad to take up the case on his behalf.

Oral Answers to Questions — Charitable Giving

Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the Commissioners have made on the impact on Church income of the new charitable giving arrangements. [119906]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): If half the money currently given in a non-tax-efficient way were given by gift aid, the Church of England might hope to recover about


another £20 million in tax in the current tax year. Our working assumption is that the new arrangements will take three years to take full effect.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I hope that the arrangements will be speeded up and that more income will come into the Church as a result of the new charitable giving initiatives. How does the hon. Gentleman envisage that he and his fellow Commissioners will be able to help churches with their running costs in the longer term?

Mr. Bell: At present, the Commissioners retain a substantial and rising liability for pensions, because of clergy who were in service before 1998. Pensions for service from 1998 onwards are being paid from the new clergy pensions scheme, so over the period 1998 to 2003 parishes are taking on the cost of pension contributions to

that scheme, with transitional help from the Commissioners. By 2003, when parishes are paying pension contributions in full, we expect that giving and fundraising will constitute two thirds of the Church's income.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am sure that the Church Commissioners welcome the changes that were made to enable Church income to be boosted in that way. What steps are being taken to ensure that people understand how they can benefit from those changes, so that Church income is maximised as speedily as possible?

Mr. Bell: We wish to communicate with the parishes, with parish churches and with parishioners to let them know what the Church is doing, what form the giving should take, and how that might assist the Church in its finances and administration.

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about recent developments in Northern Ireland, and the declaration issued over the weekend by the Provisional IRA.
On 11 February, I took the decision to suspend the political institutions which had been established barely 10 weeks earlier under the Good Friday agreement. I did so reluctantly, for reasons with which the House is familiar. If I had not done so, there would not only have been a collapse of the institutions, but a total collapse of confidence within Unionism, from which the political process would not have been able to recover for a very long time.
From that moment in February, we and the Irish Government have worked closely, at all levels, to restore the situation. As at so many crucial points in the past, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Irish Taoiseach have committed time and energy on a scale that must be unprecedented for busy Heads of Government. I have kept in close touch with the Irish Foreign Minister. There have been intensive discussions with the parties, in the most constructive atmosphere. I would like to thank officials in both Governments whose efforts have been tireless.
Our aim has been to achieve the clarity about the IRA's intentions which was noticeably lacking in February; by doing so to rebuild Unionist confidence; and thereby to re-establish the institutions. This could not be done quickly. Suspension was a bruising experience for all concerned. Unionists were disappointed that expectations raised during Senator Mitchell's review were not fulfilled. Republicans, and indeed many nationalists, saw great symbolic significance in a British Secretary of State acting to suspend local institutions as I did. People of good will on all sides were saddened that arrangements which had promised so much had proved impossible to sustain.
If Unionists need the confidence that the IRA are genuinely committed to the path of peace and willing to put their arms beyond use, republicans for their part need to know that the vision which the agreement offers, of a just and equal society in which both traditions are respected, will actually be realised.
We and the Irish Government therefore drew up an account of the remaining steps necessary to secure the full implementation of the agreement. Details were communicated to the parties on Saturday morning and I am placing a copy in the Library. The two Governments believe that those steps can be achieved by June 2001. In a statement published on Friday evening, we have committed ourselves to that goal.
The two Governments also called on the paramilitaries to state clearly and urgently that they will put their arms beyond use. For our part, we, the British Government, indicated that such statements would constitute a clear reduction in the security threat. In response, subject to assessment of the threat at the time, further substantial measures to normalise security arrangements will be taken by June 2001.
I am not yet able to say what initial measures will be taken. The Chief Constable is considering, in consultation with the Army, the situation in the light of the IRA

statement, with a view to what might be done now, and then in the period ahead if and when the threat diminishes. I assure the House though, as I have done before, that the security of the public will continue to be my highest priority. There is no question of trading essential security interests for political progress. But equally there is no doubt that the statements of the kind I have described impact positively on the assessment of the security threat.
As the House will know, the IRA made such a statement on Saturday afternoon. In the context of the Governments' implementing what they have agreed, the IRA committed itself to
a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use.
Not "maybe", not "might", but "will". The IRA statement went on:
We will do it in such a way as to avoid risk to the public and misappropriation by others and ensure maximum confidence.
In the same context, the IRA committed itself to
pursue our political objectives by peaceful means.
The statement further committed the IRA to resume contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, under General John de Chastelain. It noted that the IRA's arms are "silent and secure", and that there is no threat to the peace process from the IRA.
In addition, the statement committed the IRA to putting in place within weeks a confidence-building measure to confirm that its weapons remain secure. Independent inspectors will scrutinise a number of arms dumps and report to the de Chastelain commission. It will be an on-going process, with regular reinspections of those dumps.
It is important that we now hear, in similar terms, from the main loyalist organisations.
Since the IRA made its statement, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have announced that Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, the former President of Finland, and Mr. Cyril Ramaphosa, the former Secretary General of the African National Congress and now a prominent business man in South Africa—both of them widely respected international figures—have agreed to head the inspections. I am pleased to be able to announce that they will pay their first visit to Belfast next Monday, and I am grateful to them for their speedy response at such short notice.
I regard the IRA statement as a very significant development. For the first time, there is a commitment to put weapons completely and verifiably beyond use, in a context that is realistic rather than simply aspirational. There is a real prospect of actually achieving decommissioning: it is no longer a matter just of talking about it, or of setting conditions for it that make its realisation less likely.
There is a more clear-cut assurance of the IRA's peaceful intentions than we have ever heard before. As an earnest of those intentions, there is an unprecedented willingness to allow independent third parties to inspect arms dumps containing weapons, explosives and detonators and vouch for their continuing security. An essential element of the scheme is that the process should be continuous, to provide reassurance that dumps have not been tampered with, and that weapons have not been removed, between inspections.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has acknowledged the significance of the IRA statement, and the fact that it appears to break new ground. Not


surprisingly, he wishes to examine it carefully, and weigh its implications. That is entirely understandable. The right hon. Gentleman will also want to be confident, as I will, that, in moving forward with the agreement, the traditions and concerns of the Unionist people will be respected and dealt with sensitively, every bit as much as the traditions and concerns of nationalists.
I believe that all friends and supporters of responsible forward-looking Unionism will conclude that the proposals that I have outlined today, buttressed by the weekend's statement by the IRA, provide the conditions on which the right hon. Member for Upper Bann can lead his party back into government, confident that their long-standing and proper concerns have been addressed.
On the basis of such a positive response to these proposals, not only from the right hon. Gentleman's party but from all the pro-agreement parties, I can confirm to the House that I will bring forward the necessary order to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Executive by 22 May.
In this event, I feel hopeful and confident that the ultimate prize—stable, inclusive government in Northern Ireland and an unbreakable peace—will at long last be within our grasp.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: In light of the developments in Northern Ireland over the weekend, I know that I speak for the whole House in saying to the Secretary of State that we are very grateful that at the first possible opportunity he has come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement. I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said—the statement issued by the Provisional IRA at lunchtime on Saturday is significant. It is worth recalling that never before have they said that they will put arms and explosives completely beyond use and have that verified. Naturally, we welcome this significant development.
The Secretary of State will not be surprised to know, however, that we have concerns, reservations and questions which I would like to put to him this afternoon. Those reservations are not least because we have all of us, the right hon. Gentleman included, had our fingers burned in the past. We thought that we had an understanding last November/December that if the right hon. Gentleman set up an Executive, within a matter of weeks the Provisional IRA would start decommissioning its illegally held arms and explosives. Sadly, the people of Northern Ireland were let down. That did not happen, and the Secretary of State had no choice but to suspend the Executive.
My first point is that we need guarantees that the arms and explosives will be permanently put beyond use. We note that the Provisional IRA is promising to bring forward confidence-building measures in the next few weeks that will give us and the people of Northern Ireland that assurance. Is there anything further that the Secretary of State can say today that will satisfy us on that point?
Secondly, we note that the Provisional IRA has said that several of its arms dumps will be available to the international inspectors. Clearly, the House wants all the arms dumps to be available. I would like confirmation of that from the Secretary of State. I would also like him to go a little further than he did in his statement about the

process by which the inspectors will be constantly monitoring what happens in the dumps. As he will appreciate, spasmodic visits from time to time will not regain the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland who have suffered so much from terrorism, both republican and loyalist, over the past 30 years.
The next point that needs raising is what sanctions the Secretary of State believes he has if his international inspectors tell him that the arms have been used or moved. Can he confirm that, if necessary, he is prepared to suspend the Executive again, if the Provisional IRA fails to fulfil its part of the bargain?
We note that the two Prime Ministers have drawn together a statement saying that they wish to normalise security in the Province. That is of course welcome, not least to people living in Northern Ireland. However, can the right hon. Gentleman go even further than he did in his statement and say that there will never be alterations in troop levels or other changes in security arrangements without full consultation with, and the consent of, the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland and also the Chief Constable? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is essential.
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in supporting the Belfast agreement, the Provisional IRA clearly supported the fact that the agreement recognises beyond all doubt that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom while the majority of people within it wish it to do so, and the fact that there will be absolutely no circumstances in which Northern Ireland will not remain part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the people of the Province?
Finally, will the Secretary of State accept that it is absolutely essential that the men of violence—republican or so-called loyalist—must fulfil their obligations under the Belfast agreement, just as the two Governments and democratic politicians, both Unionist and nationalist, have already done. The eyes of the world will be on them, and they will not be forgiven if they fail.

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of my assessment of the IRA's weekend statement. That is the starting point and cornerstone of all the steps and further moves that I have described this afternoon.
The point at the heart of all the right hon. Gentleman's questions was whether we can trust the Provisional IRA, take it at its word and rely on that word. It has been said that IRA statements—even at their most unwelcome and bloody—have a sort of rugged honesty about them. That has been shown in the past, as my predecessor and previous Ministers could testify. While I firmly believe that we must always be on our guard and must always look ahead and test and evaluate statements rather than taking what people say at face value, my judgment is that, taken in the round and given the background of considerable efforts and difficulties from which the statement emerged, it can be relied upon. That does not mean to say that we should take anything for granted. I think that I have shown myself to be anything other than an easy touch for the republican movement in Northern Ireland, and I do not intend to become one now.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several specific questions. He must understand that the confidence-building measure is a first stage towards making arms safe


and secure. The next stage, which must follow—this is what the decommissioning process is all about—is for those arms to be completely and verifiably put beyond use. The confidence-building measure paves the way for that and builds up to it. The main process must follow, and the Provisional IRA now says that we have a political context and a backcloth of institutions that will function once more against which it can pursue the process of putting arms completely and verifiably beyond use.
I gather that there will be several substantial dumps of weaponry, explosives and detonators. Obviously, the inspection of those dumps is a matter for those whom we have nominated, and not for me. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that a robust and dependable process will be put in place in consultation with the inspectors, who will work closely alongside General de Chastelain's commission to make sure that monitoring and scrutiny are replete and adequate for the task.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions about sanctions and about what we should do if it all goes wrong. I have addressed those questions in the past, and I am not blind to them now. I can only say that I am not planning for failure, but if a further political crisis is sparked in circumstances that it is not possible for me to foresee, those responsible for that crisis will be clear for everyone to see. I shall of course, at the end of the day, always ensure the good government of Northern Ireland and will take any measures necessary to secure it.
As far as normalisation measures and security are concerned, I do not act except on the advice of the Chief Constable—primarily—who in turn consults the General Officer Commanding of the Army. That has always been the case and it always will be.
Finally, the whole point of the Good Friday agreement was to enshrine the principle of consent, and for the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom to be recognised and respected while a majority in Northern Ireland wish it. That is the kernel of the Good Friday agreement, along with principles of fairness and parity of esteem. Those principles are robust and enduring. The measures and policies that we pursue will reflect those important principles at the heart of the Good Friday agreement.

Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State, in his statement itself, has acknowledged that we are being properly cautious in our approach to the developments of the weekend—in particular, the IRA statement. While it appears to break new ground, there are still matters that should be probed. Until we get sufficiently satisfactory answers on those and related matters, it would be premature to make a decision on this matter.
I think that the Secretary of State is also aware of our very firm view that the progress that there has been would not have been achieved but for suspension in February. Had there not been suspension in February, we would not have seen this happen. It was my own clear view that the evidence—of actions rather than words—clearly is that the republican movement only moves under pressure. That is a lesson that we hope has now been learned.
Like the Secretary of State, we take the view that the most significant part of the IRA statement is that passage in which they say they will initiate
a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use.

I should like the Secretary of State to confirm that it is the Government's view that the process there referred to—the process that will completely put arms beyond use—is, in fact, decommissioning, and that it is decommissioning in consultation with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and decommissioning in accordance with the legislation and the schemes. In that context, will the Secretary of State expand on the reference in the statement issued by the Government on Friday evening in which they said that they were inviting the international commission to consider amendments to the schemes? Will the Secretary of State tell us what provisions he has in mind and whether they would involve any change to the basic principles set out in the legislation?
The Secretary of State also referred to confidence-building measures that the IRA said it would undertake within weeks. Can we have it again confirmed that it is the Government's view that those confidence-building measures are of a transitional nature; that they are not the end result itself, but a transition—part of a process leading to decommissioning in the proper sense?
The Secretary of State will also know that it is very much our desire that this process should succeed and that we should see devolution restored—provided that it is done on a sound basis—and that, irrespective of whatever decision he may make with regard to the restoration of devolution, my party will make its own decision as to what role it will play in future institutions: this party's decision will always be its own decision, and should it consider that, at any point in the future, there is a failure by republicans to carry out the process, it will act accordingly.
Finally, I underline the comments of the Secretary of State that, having heard from the republican movement, it is now essential that we hear from loyalist paramilitaries. We hope that they can—as they have done in the past—improve upon what the IRA has offered.

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—not just for echoing my comments about the loyalist paramilitary organisations; I think that all Members of the House will join him in expressing that sentiment. Of course, I respect, have always respected and will always respect the position and the right of his party to consider what it believes it is necessary to do in the interests both of those who support his party and of society in Northern Ireland as a whole. I readily acknowledge that that is how he is motivated.
I do not want to dwell on the past or to return to the issue of suspension; that is far too painful. I think that the lessons that the right hon. Gentleman described have probably been learned by everyone. On holding people's feet to the fire, no one can touch him in that regard and everyone will have heard what he said about putting pressure on others. Although pressure is sometimes unwelcome, it is none the less frequently necessary to maintain it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the confidence-building measure. Yes, it is a start not an end; it is the beginning of the process and stage 1. Further stages must follow. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not in the business of trying to announce deadlines at this stage as to when the process should finish. We have done that in the past and it got us precisely nowhere, so I am not going to try it again. None the less, the process must be on-going.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me specifically about the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. The point that he referred to in the Government statement of Friday night was simply that, if anyone wishes to make fresh proposals for new decommissioning schemes that they think are preferable to those already on the table, both Governments will consider them urgently. The whole point of any such scheme would be to maximise the latitude open to the decommissioning body to fulfil its objectives—nothing more and nothing less.
I do not propose to introduce any amendments to the 1997 Act. It set out four options for decommissioning arms, but provided for more to be created if necessary. It also says that arms can be destroyed or made permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable, and that gives us enough breadth and scope for action to proceed without amending the legislation.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The statement is most welcome. My right hon. Friend will know that I supported him fully on the suspension of the Executive and I support him on its re-establishment now that circumstances are dramatically different. However, would it not help in putting arms, iron bars and other weapons beyond use if, over the next year, movement were made so that exiles are no longer kept out of Northern Ireland by paramilitaries, but are allowed to return home and feel that it is safe to do so because estates in certain areas are no longer run and dominated by paramilitary groups? If there are moves in that direction in the next year, we might have everything established fully by June 2001.

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who touches on a good point that I referred to in a speech I made in Belfast this morning, before I came to the House. If ceasefires are to be worth anything and are to live up to their name, and if the term "peaceful means" is to mean what it says, paramilitary beatings, shootings and the rest of it must be out now, and once and for all if we are to build the decent civic society that we all want in Northern Ireland. That applies to the use of threats against exiles as well. All that has got to go and it has got to end; it must be part of the past 30 years of conflict that we are finally leaving behind us.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the Secretary of State agree that the IRA's statement, and especially its willingness to re-establish contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, shows that those of us in the House who stuck by the process throughout without imposing extra conditions or seeking to do so probably did the right thing? Does he think, as I do, that the IRA's comment that
there is no threat to the peace process from the IRA,
while circumstantial, none the less represents a significant step forward in terms of the organisation' s willingness to participate in the process? In that context, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he believes that the statements of the two Governments on human rights and equality of opportunity suggest that the whole process is on the move? That has to be welcomed.
I am interested in the Secretary of State's view on the June 2001 timetable. Will he confirm that he believes, as I do, that that timetable is more circumspect and

thought-out than the 22 May 2000 deadline, having been more fully debated by the people who can actually deliver the decommissioning result? We might therefore be more optimistic about June 2001.
Finally, does the Secretary of State concur that this is a real development, and one most definitely needed by the process? If seen through by all the parties in Northern Ireland—as I sincerely hope it will be—it should, by rights, enable the Secretary of State to re-establish something that we all want, and that is the governance of Northern Ireland by politicians in Northern Ireland by 22 May.

Mr. Mandelson: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support and insight that he has brought to all our debates which are rooted in his upbringing and education in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that people would have been better advised to stick by the process. Most have done so. However, over the weekend, one or two people tried to pour cold water over developments in Northern Ireland in the past 72 hours. I do not see many of them here this afternoon, so perhaps their cold water is becoming a little tepid and their scepticism is not borne out.
The Government will pursue all parts of the Good Friday agreement with vigour and enthusiasm over the coming year. Implementing all aspects of the agreement over the coming year will involve a tough, demanding and exacting timetable for us. That is the essential political context in which we can see further welcome moves in the process of decommissioning from the Provisional IRA. I certainly believe that what is happening now is only a start, but it is better to make a start than to worry so much about the finish that we never make a start in the first place.

Mr. John Major: Is the Secretary of State aware that the development justifies his decision in February to suspend the institutions, controversial though that might have been? Is he aware that it is welcome news if weapons are to be verifiably deactivated? If carried through fully, that development should lead to a lasting settlement.
In view of past disappointments, it is important that the House and Government are clear about what is on offer. Is it total or partial decommissioning? Does a substantial number of dumps mean all the dumps or something substantially less than all available weapons? When will active examination of the dumps begin and what does the Secretary of State hope will be concluded by the deadline of June 2001? Will he elaborate to the House on any price that he feels the IRA might attach to the offer? What does the IRA mean by full implementation of the Belfast agreement? If, as I suspect that it might, that involves further movement by the Government on security or other issues, is the Secretary of State aware that that deserves support, provided that such movement is synchronised with, and does not precede, the IRA's movement on beginning to put arms beyond use.
From the outset, this has been a long trail. There may yet be setbacks in a process of this nature. However, this weekend's statement has brought hope back to Belfast. I hope that past enmities and distrust will not disguise the opportunity that now seems to lie at hand.

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose words will be welcome across the


community in Northern Ireland, not least because no one knows more about that long trail, as he calls it, than he does.
May I first take up the right hon. Gentleman's final point about the price being paid? I am eternally vigilant about the price that has to be paid for such moves, and I am especially vigilant on the subject of security normalisation. There is absolutely no question that we shall do anything other than respond to changes and reductions in the security threat; we are not carrying out measures of security normalisation in order to procure political change. That is the important principle. As I said in my statement, I believe that it is possible for us to move ahead with some initial measures, and I know that the Chief Constable is currently considering those measures. However, what lies ahead and what further progress we make must rely on our assessment of the security threat as it develops and as it manifests itself on the ground at that moment. I hope that everyone has heard those three very important qualifications.
As for the confidence-building measures, it is important to distinguish between initial measures to make arms safe and secure, which the IRA says it will undertake, and the continuing, subsequent process of decommissioning—or, as the right hon. Gentleman says, deactivating. I think that it was he who first introduced the term "decommissioning", and he has now introduced a new term, "deactivating"; That is a rather smart and appropriate term to use, and I shall borrow it henceforward.
As for CBMs—the opening and verifying of the dumps—the two inspectors, Mr. Ahtisaari and Mr. Ramaphosa, will visit Belfast next Monday. All the technical detail has to wait until they come and we have that discussion with them. They will go through all that with General de Chastelain and his colleagues, in consultation with the Government, and I do not want to pre-empt or anticipate how they will do that. All I will say is that I know that Mr. Ahtisaari has considerable experience of these matters in the Balkans, most recently in Kosovo, and there have been similar situations with similar needs that have been addressed in the past; therefore, I do not think that it will be impossible for us to devise the precise arrangements and technical details that are needed.
As for what I hope we have achieved by June 2001—total, partial, on-the-way or two-thirds decommissioning—I really do not want to predict or speculate at this stage. All I know is that unless that process continues and it is enduring, reliable and robust, there will always be the danger of confidence running out of the political process, as it did previously. That is the last thing that we need and it would be a crying shame if it did occur. I hope and assume that everyone who has responsibility for making progress in these matters will do so, so that confidence is maintained, not only for the immediate future, but for always.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my pessimism following his decision to suspend the Executive. I am pleased to admit that my pessimism seems to have been confounded, and I wish to join in the congratulations to him, to both Governments and to the parties on the hard work that they have done that has enabled this weekend's statement to be made.
What is especially important is that all parties appear to have recognised that there was a ceasefire, not a victory or a defeat for either side; and that therefore there is now no ultimatum or fixed date. In the past, those hoops have been raised by various people from time to time, and people felt that the IRA had to jump through them. The fact that they no longer exist, coupled with the IRA's statement, gives great cause for hope.
I conclude by wishing the right hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) courage and good heart during the very difficult negotiations that they will have with their own party.

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has not only shown recent pessimism about the situation but has demonstrated a colossal commitment over many years to getting under way the peace process which we now see culminating, I hope, in success. My hon. Friend is right. If there were any connotations of surrender or defeat or other people being victorious, forget it—we would get absolutely nowhere. That is why we must be so careful about the language that we use and the tone that we adopt when we talk about these matters. All the time, whether Unionists are coming into the devolved institutions or paramilitary organisations are decommissioning, all those are voluntary acts. We are persuading people and creating the conditions and circumstances in which they will follow and go with each other along a virtuous path. That is why my hon. Friend's point is so valid. We are not asking people to jump through hoops. We are asking them to live up to their word and to others' expectations of them. That is what we must hope and assume will be the case in the months and years to come.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Since, of the 14 places where Robert the Bruce is said to have had his famous encounter with the spider, the BBC commends Rathlin island off the North Antrim coast, may I start by congratulating the Government on having followed Robert the Bruce's example? May I also ask the Secretary of State to clarify an aspect of the expansion of the international inspection? One of the new international inspectors shares nationality with a member of the de Chastelain commission, but the other does not. If the process of inspection is to be continuous, how does the Secretary of State envisage that the second international inspector will be able to carry out that inspection?

Mr. Mandelson: I do not think that the inspectors' respective nationalities will be such a relevant factor or a hindrance for either or both of them. However, the right hon. Gentleman touches on a good point about the relationship. Let me make this clear. We are asking the former President of Finland, who has considerable experience and current activity in relation to international crises and conflict resolution to carve out of his diary at very short notice a considerable commitment of time. I do not want to put him off by rehearsing in advance what the task will involve, but we are looking to those individuals to come and spend at least a couple of days at a time on each inspection that they undertake, which will continue for some time to come. Suffice it to say that I think they know what they are letting themselves in for—at least I hope they do, or rather I hope that they do not know too much of what


they are letting themselves in for. None the less, both are very committed, and they will be able to draw on the considerable expertise that has already been built up in General de Chastelain's commission from the three commissioners who work in that body. I have absolute confidence that they will be able to work well together, in the initial stages on the confidence-building measures, as the decommissioning body takes on the further responsibility for supervising the decommissioning process in the longer term.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I should be obliged if I could now have brisk questions and answers. Many hon. Members are still standing, and there is another major statement to come before we get on to our main business.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: My right hon. Friend's statement is unreservedly welcome. Does he agree that the unprecedented IRA statement that we are discussing represents the best and possibly the last chance of delivering peace to Northern Ireland under the present peace process? Does he further agree that to oppose it without good cause is tantamount to opposing peace itself?

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I am tempted to say that we should not look a gift horse in the mouth. It is right to question the statement, to probe it and to see what is there behind the smile, but having done all that, which I do not hesitate to do, I hope that at the end of the day, people will embrace it for what it is. It may not yet be perfect in every respect, but for now, it is as good as it gets.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Secretary of State accept that all who have contributed to creating the environment that has allowed him to make this encouraging statement today should be commended? Given that many of us agree with his analysis that we need to build confidence and trust, does he recognise that that would be facilitated if the initial verification visits were regular—indeed, frequent—and the results of each published at the time?

Mr. Mandelson: The inspectors of the dumps are committed to doing whatever is needed to ensure that their remit is properly fulfilled. As for the reports of the de Chastelain decommissioning body, the Governments have given a commitment to publish them fully and promptly in future. I personally attach great importance to that.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, while the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had the decency, good sense and honesty to remark that similar moves should be made by Unionist paramilitaries, no speaker from the official Opposition has referred to that aspect of the problem? Does he agree that it would be constructive if Opposition Members would refer to it?

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend speaks of loyalist, not Unionist paramilitaries. I entirely endorse her sentiment,

but I believe that the comments to which she refers have been made by the Opposition. I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) shares my desire for loyalist paramilitaries to follow up and reflect what the Provisional IRA said over the weekend.

Mr. John D. Taylor: We are discussing a statement not by Sinn Fein but by the IRA. That is a breakthrough in itself. However, there must be some clarification. For example, the IRA has said that it will put arms beyond use. That means that it could put 5 per cent. of its illegal arms beyond use and retain the other 95 per cent. of its arsenal to continue terrorism in the island of Ireland. Will there be some guarantee that all the illegal arms that are currently in the hands of the IRA will be brought under control in some way and that the process is on-going?
Much though we want the normalisation of policing and security, will the Secretary of State assure the people of Northern Ireland not only that the role of the Provisional IRA will be considered, but that the on-going threat from the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA will be a factor in making decisions?
The Belfast agreement placed an obligation on the Dublin Government to create a Human Rights Commission in accordance with the European convention on human rights. We have anxieties about the treatment of minorities in the Republic; that is why we got the requirement written into the Belfast agreement. Two years have passed; will the Secretary of State tell us when it will happen?
I commend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for their contribution to the on-going process.

Mr. Mandelson: I am glad to say that, in the joint statement, the Irish Government said that it would establish a Human Rights Commission and introduce legislation shortly.
On the dissidents to whom the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) correctly draws attention, I shall highlight another paragraph in the joint statement that the Governments issued on Friday. It is important to note that they pledged themselves to taking all and any effective measures necessary for dealing with continuing terrorist activity and threat from dissident paramilitary individuals and organisations. We shall step up our measures as well as our vigilance. It is important to do that in full co-operation with the security forces of the Irish Republic.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the IRA was talking about all or part of its arms. I have no hesitation in saying that our requirement and my expectation is that all the arms will be placed under the sort of control to which he referred. We are talking about "completely and verifiably": we are talking not about "somewhat", "sometime", "perhaps" or "if', but "will completely and verifiably". In the unlikely but theoretically possible circumstances of the Provisional IRA ceasefire being broken, its breach would be clear for all to see and judge. That would mean that it was impossible for the political representatives of the republican movement to remain active participants in the democratic institutions that we are creating.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I was struck by the fact that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said that the IRA's statement is


a breakthrough. I welcome the early re-institution of the Executive and the Assembly, but, in relation to my right hon. Friend's comments on initial decisions on the security front, a fine confidence-building response would be to order the early demolition of the Barouki tower, known as the crow's nest, in Crossmaglen square. That ugly blot on the townscape serves no useful security purpose, which is a point that I have made to the Chief Constable himself.

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend wrote to me recently, following his visit to South Armagh, about one or more of the installations which, in his opinion, are particularly intrusive. I have considered his comments and brought them to the attention of those who are responsible, but I must make it absolutely clear that I shall not go into the ins and outs of any particular arrangement or installation that exists in Northern Ireland, except to say that nothing will change—nothing will go down, nothing will go up—except on the clear, unequivocal advice and say-so of those who are responsible for advising me on such matters: primarily the Chief Constable, in consultation with the General Officer Commanding.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Is not the Provisionals' position unchanged in at least two key respects? First, the full implementation of the Belfast agreement has only the potential to remove the causes of the conflict; full implementation itself will not remove those causes. Secondly, the IRA has still not unequivocally and unconditionally committed itself to decommissioning all its weapons.

Mr. Mandelson: If we trawled over a detailed, word-by-word analysis of all that the IRA has said, we would be here for the rest of the day, but we are not here to do that. These matters are very important, however. We have heard many such statements before. We have to look behind what is meant in addition to what is simply said. I am satisfied, given my examination of these matters, that what has been said has been said sincerely and without cynicism, but it remains to be seen whether what has been said will be borne out by deeds and actions. We should judge the IRA by deeds and actions rather than simply words.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the renewal of the process would not have been possible but for the excellent relationship between the British and Irish Governments and, especially, between our Prime Minister and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern? Will he emphasise in his future deliberations on such matters the continuing importance of the close relationship between the British and Irish Governments, especially on the provision of whatever necessary security, logistical or material support Mr. Ramaphosa and Mr. Ahtisaari will require to do their important work?

Mr. Mandelson: Yes. I have no hesitation in echoing what my hon. Friend says. The relationship is excellent. We would never have got anywhere—we certainly would not have got where we are today—without the relationship between the two Governments, the particularly close relationship between my right hon. Friend and the Taoiseach and the relationship between me and the Irish

Foreign Affairs Minister. It is a very honest relationship—[Interruption.] It is a very honest relationship, and no less robust and reliable for that. The Taoiseach and the Foreign Minister have made a tremendous, absolutely first-rate contribution, with their officials, to what has been achieved. Our continuing success certainly depends on that relationship remaining permanent.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: It seems a long time since I first stood at this Bench and talked about disarmament and verification of a process and the need to be reassured that the war is over. We have had numerous euphemisms in the interim, most of which have run into the sand because the nuts and bolts, the practicalities and the technicalities, have not been dealt with effectively.
Now that we are dealing with the real men of violence—the IRA—does the Secretary of State recognise that the Ulster Unionist party still has day-to-day responsibility for reassuring society in Northern Ireland? We do not want the invigilators to work in a detached way: we want contact with them from time to time, especially at the outset, so that they understand what is required from society's point of view.

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not know how long we have the two of them in Belfast next Monday, but if it is possible for them to meet the main political representatives during their visit that would be very desirable. Of course the devil is in the detail in all these matters. Whatever other shortcomings and vices I have, not having an eye for detail and not being able to micro-manage things are not among them.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for the work that they have done and for the welcome statement that has been made today. My right hon. Friend says that he hopes the Assembly will reconvene on 22 May. Does there have to be a vote and debate in the House?
Although there is a statement from the IRA, my right hon. Friend hopes that there will also be one from the loyalist paramilitaries. If it is not forthcoming before 22 May, will he continue with the re-establishment of the Assembly, or will there be a delay because of the loyalist paramilitaries' inability to come up with a statement such as the IRA has made this weekend?

Mr. Mandelson: I hope very much that the loyalist paramilitaries follow up and echo what the Provisional IRA has said. That is terribly important if we are to build confidence right across the community in Northern Ireland. I am not in the business of making conditions about statements or about decommissioning in relation to the devolved institutions.

Mr. Corbyn: Good. I did not want my right hon. Friend to do that.

Mr. Mandelson: I thought for one minute that my hon. Friend was asking me to make that conditional, and to reintroduce a direct relationship between those two things. There will be an order and a debate before 22 May, and I have every expectation that the Executive of the Assembly will be going again on that date if we get the positive response from the parties that we are looking for.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Only the IRA knows the size and location of its arms holdings. Therefore,


decommissioning and the destruction of arms was always going to depend on the calculation of the IRA's interest and its good faith and trust, as the Secretary of State has said. Do not those two things apply equally to the current proposal for decommissioning by way of inspection of these weapons?

Mr. Mandelson: Yes is the answer to that, but this time we are doing more than merely travelling in hope. What the Provisional IRA has said is so direct and so clear-cut that it would lose a colossal amount if it were to resile in any way from the commitments that it has made. Of course I do not know the size and location of the IRA's weaponry. Although we can deactivate arms, we cannot decommission engineering knowledge and the ability to import or to remake arms should it wish to do so. That is why the motivation and the intention of the Provisional IRA and how that has been stated and described over the weekend is so important. Pursuing political objectives by peaceful means is the top and bottom line of that statement in this situation. That is the big picture, and we should not lose sight of it.

Mr. Steve McCabe: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement about the institutions. Is this not the time for all genuinely peace-seeking politicians in Northern Ireland to commit themselves totally to the peace process, and is it not an opportunity for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—for whom I have considerable respect—to make it clear to those around him who oppose the process that he is determined to go down in history as a peacemaker?

Mr. Mandelson: Since becoming Secretary of State, I have long since learned not to give the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) any lectures on how to manage his party. That would be completely beyond me, even if I desired to do it—and sometimes, perhaps, beyond the right hon. Gentleman as well.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's party will reach the conclusion that we all want and pray for, but it must make that decision in its own way and in its own time. It is a large party, and an intensely democratic party. That is why, for now, I shall leave things in the capable hands of the Ulster Unionist Council.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I give a cautious welcome to what is clearly improving news, but does the Secretary of State accept that there is a significant problem? The arms that the IRA says it will decommission will be, as it were, the institutional arms, which are all in one place. Many weapons will remain at large in the community, and under the control of the IRA. Will the right hon. Gentleman draw to the inspectors' attention the real need to deal with those weapons, as well as the weapons that will appear in the dumps?

Mr. Mandelson: That is not the responsibility of the inspectors, so, with respect, I shall not be drawing it to their attention.
These arms, right across the community, are not simply in the hands of the IRA; they are in the hands of many people and organisations. That is why, if we are to build

the decent, democratic civic society that we want to see in Northern Ireland—if we are to succeed in taking the gun out of Irish politics for ever—all those guns and all those people must be addressed, and all those people must be persuaded to deal with the matter.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman, but I think that this is something not so much for the inspectors as for General de Chastelain's commission to examine and tackle, and I shall urge it to do so.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Long before the right hon. Gentleman's star span into the political firmament, militant republicanism had shown its murderous capacity for mutation—from official IRA to Provisional IRA, and now from Provisional to Continuity and Real IRA. It will probably continue to mutate long after the right hon. Gentleman has, like some comet, gone into outer darkness. Given that weapons are kept in the barn, under the floorboards and in the house next door—if it is empty—is it not vital that no security arrangements be reduced until such time as, over the years, it has become perfectly plain that weapons are being taken out of society and not just being put on display for the benefit of visiting foreign inspectors?

Mr. Mandelson: I think the hon. Gentleman has introduced a rather cynical—unjustifiably cynical—note. I do not know whether I shall be in outer darkness, or in what part of the firmament I shall be, when we see these organisations, rather than continuing to mutate, fade away and wither on the vine for ever. That is what I want to see—an end to the mutating, and a start to the withering—but it will only happen in the context of politics working and being seen to work. That is why we have set out the proposals that we have set out; that is why we are constructing this backcloth of political change and development in front of which the decommissioning process can get under way—I hope thoroughly, and I hope faithfully.
I hope that we shall be able to come back at some time in the future, and demonstrate that the hon. Gentleman's scepticism was unfounded.

Mr. Eric Forth: The Assembly is to be reinstated this month, but the Secretary of State said, I thought very revealingly, that he did not know whether deactivation would have been completed even by June 2001. Can he therefore give any indication as to when he will judge whether the deactivation process has been a success and, in the light of that, what the status of the Assembly should be? Can he please tell us: will these now increasingly famous dumps be in Northern Ireland, in the Republic or in both?

Mr. Mandelson: I suspect, in direct answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last question, that the dumps will be in the south, rather than the north, but I cannot say that for sure or exclusively. However, that is what I suspect will be the case.
I am not plucking particular dates or standards, or particular points in time by which I will judge whether the process has been successful or not. It has to be continuous. We have continuously to keep all this under review, continuously to keep the pressure up, continuously to maintain the engagement between the paramilitary


organisations and the de Chastelain commission. There is absolutely no point in descending for a day in a month, looking around, asking what is going on and simply walking away and losing sight of what is happening between those times. That is not how I want people to behave. It would not be the best approach to take.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. The House is now ready to take the second statement.

Sierra Leone

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, I shall make a statement on Sierra Leone. I regret that it is one of the gravest statements that I have had to make to the House.
Over the past week, Revolutionary United Front rebels have broken their commitment to the Lome peace agreement and have returned to conflict. They have made a number of attacks on the United Nations forces and on demobilisation camps. At least four Kenyan members of the UN forces have been killed in action. Around 500 United Nations personnel have been detained, including one British UN military observer.
At the weekend, the rebels appeared to be moving on Freetown. The situation in Freetown is tense. I spoke at midday to our high commissioner there, who reported that the police had been successful in arresting a number of rebel bands and had seized arms which they had been about to distribute.
Tens of thousands of residents of Freetown loyal to President Kabbah have today marched on the residence of the rebel leader, Foday Sankoh, which they have surrounded. From about 1 o'clock this afternoon, the sound of gunfire could be heard from that location. That development has serious implications for the security situation within Freetown and for the future actions of rebel forces commanded by Foday Sankoh.
Our first duty is to protect the lives of British citizens in Sierra Leone and of others for whom we have consular responsibility. We believe that there are up to 500 British nationals in Sierra Leone, mostly in the Freetown area. There is a smaller number of European Union nationals and Commonwealth nationals without diplomatic representation, for whom we have consular responsibility.
Our immediate advice to British residents in Freetown is to stay indoors. This afternoon, the high commission has activated its evacuation plan and is contacting British residents through the local warden network to give them the necessary instructions.
In view of the limited commercial opportunities to leave Sierra Leone and the current insecurity, we have taken the precautionary measure of deployment of a number of British military assets to West Africa. The forward elements of the current spearhead battalion, the 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment arrived in Dakar, Senegal over the weekend. They are currently moving from Dakar to Freetown. In addition, HMS Ocean, support vessels with 42 Commando and a number of helicopters are moving towards the region and will be at Sierra Leone early next week. HMS Illustrious has been withdrawn from a NATO exercise to be available as needed.
Those measures have been taken to ensure that we are best placed to respond quickly to safeguard the security of British nationals. Our forces will ensure the security of the international Sierra Leone airport. Not only is that of immediate utility for the evacuation, but it is valuable in allowing the UN forces to continue to build up.
The UN force is currently about 3,000 short of its mandated strength of more than 11,000. We are urging the nations contributing to the UN force to expedite the


additional numbers. I spoke last night to Madeleine Albright, and I welcome the United States's offer to consider strategic airlift to fly in units from the Jordanian and Bangladeshi armies.
I have also spoken to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and offered further logistical support, such as vehicles, for the UN force. I pressed upon him that one of the immediate lessons of the past few days is that nations contributing forces to the UN must also contribute the equipment necessary to fulfil the UN's mandate.
Responsibility for the current outbreak of violence lies squarely with the RUF rebels and their leader, Foday Sankoh. A year ago, he committed himself to a peace process that offered re-integration and retraining to his troops in exchange for demilitarisation. Considerable progress had been made on that process. UN forces had deployed across two thirds of the country. Almost half the armed groups had registered at demobilisation centres, and a significant quantity of weapons had been surrendered. Work had begun on training a new defence force for the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone, and on preparations for democratic elections next year. All that progress has been put at risk by the RUF reneging on commitments that it has made.
One of the triggers for the current conflict appears to have been the attempt by the UN forces to enter the diamond-producing region that is held by the RUF and provides it with weapons and friends. That development underlines the importance of the international debate, in which Britain has been a leading voice, for more transparent regulation of the trade in uncut diamonds. I shall be pressing at the forthcoming meeting of Group of Eight Foreign Ministers for an international system to certify that diamonds do not come from conflict areas. We should not allow diamonds to be sold for the price of weapons or at the cost of lives.
I want to make it clear to the House and to the people of Sierra Leone that Britain will not abandon its commitment to Sierra Leone. Britain has done more than any other country outside the region to restore legitimate government in Sierra Leone. We are the largest national donor to the peace process; we hosted the international donors conference earlier this year; and we are in the lead in training the new army for the Government of Sierra Leone.
We shall continue to take the lead at the UN and elsewhere to restore the peace process. We must not allow a few thousand rebels to prevent the end to violence, and the peace in which to get on with their lives for which 3 million people in Sierra Leone desperately hunger.

Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham): I thank the Foreign Secretary for making that statement. The whole House will be desperately concerned about the violence in Sierra Leone. No one could begin to excuse the conduct of a gang of thugs who have indulged in some of the most appalling acts of vicious brutality against civilians, including large numbers of young children.
With respect to the Foreign Secretary, it seems to most of us that it has not been only in the past week that the Lomé peace accord has broken down. Sadly, most of the Revolutionary United Front has never accepted that peace,

but continued with a loathsome campaign of killing and maiming. We all wish nothing but the best for the people of that unhappy country, who are being used as the playthings of some thoroughly nasty individuals.
The House's thoughts will particularly be with the British nationals who are still in Sierra Leone, including the Foreign Office personnel, and with their families at home who are bound to be concerned about their safety. We are especially concerned for the British service man attached to the United Nations forces who has been taken hostage by the RUF, and for his family at this anxious time.
We strongly support the decision to send the contingent of our armed services to Sierra Leone. We wish them good fortune in the tasks that may lie ahead of them.
Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how many British nationals are still in the country, and whether they are able to leave without impediment? Where are they concentrated? He said that most of them seem to be in Freetown, but how far-flung are the rest? Do any of them seem to be trapped in areas held by the RUF? Is he satisfied that everything that can be done by the United Nations to free the British service man is being done? As I understand it, he was there under the aegis of the United Nations.
Given the evidence that Britain's armed forces are already stretched dangerously thin, will the Foreign Secretary make it categorically clear that the British contingent in Sierra Leone has one mandate, and one mandate only: to get the British nationals out? Will he assure the House that the sending of, effectively, three battalion strengths of the Parachute Regiment and Marines, as well as five ships—plus, we are now told, an aircraft carrier—is for that purpose only, and not part of a wider military commitment to shore up a United Nations operation that appears to be close to collapse?
The Foreign Secretary's remarks about securing the airport partially to enable the further build-up of UN forces will have rung some alarm bells. There would be no public support, I believe, for allowing British forces to be sucked into a civil war in Sierra Leone. What benchmarks and time limits have been set in place to ensure that the operation to evacuate British nationals does not gradually extend into a much wider mission?
Do any of the other countries with nationals still in Sierra Leone have plans to send forces to help with the evacuation? If so, will Britain take part in a joint evacuation operation?
It is at times like this, when British nationals abroad are in danger, that we have cause to be glad that our armed forces, in their courage and professionalism, are the envy of the world. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that such circumstances underline how important it is that our commitments should not outstretch our capabilities, and does he accept that the sorry tale of Sierra Leone shows that, with the best will in the world, there are limits to what the United Nations can do in attempting to keep a peace that has never been properly struck?

Mr. Cook: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support and I entirely echo what he said about the courage and professionalism of British troops. Once again, we have seen how fortunate we are in that respect. I also join in what he said about the family of the detained British officer. We understood at the weekend, when we


last heard, that he was alive, safe and well, but plainly nobody can relax until his release has been obtained. The United Nations has sent missions and has used intermediaries. We very much hope that that will be successful in securing the early release of all the UN detainees, and our own British officer in particular.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in describing the appalling brutality of the RUF and its members. They are particularly given to lopping off the limbs of those who do not subscribe to their view of society and the world: there are many young children in Sierra Leone who now have neither arm as a result of their actions. They have also indulged in systematic rape, and we know that some of the women who were captured for that are still kept in a condition of effective sexual slavery. It is also the case that they abduct children and force them into their operations. There are probably about 2,000 children at present being compelled to act as child soldiers with the RUF.
I entirely echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about the brutal, nasty nature of the RUF and the need to contain it, and that is why I invite him to reflect again on the language that he used about the UN operation. The message from the House should not be that we are about to accept the collapse of the UN operation or that, reading between the lines, we might be secretly gratified to see its collapse. We all want to work to make a success of that operation, and Britain will take every step that we can to do so.
I would have thought that it would be welcome to the House to hear that the presence of British forces will maintain the international airport for the supply of that UN force. We cannot simultaneously decry the brutal character of the RUF and be unwilling to establish a bridgehead for the UN to enter.
We will continue to review daily the mandate for the British force and the time scale for its remaining, and we will weigh the value of its presence against the security and safety of those who are in it.
We understand that the overwhelming majority of British nationals are in Freetown. We cannot be precise about numbers because we do not know how many people have voluntarily left in the past few days, given the deteriorating situation. Some are still further up country, particularly some who are working for non-governmental organisations outside Freetown. We hope that we will be able to make contact with them when possible and that they will be able to return to Freetown and take part in the evacuation.
No other European nation is operating an evacuation plan, but we are the only European nation with a diplomatic presence in Freetown. We accept our obligation in those circumstances to act on behalf of other European nations, as we would expect them to do if the situation were reversed.

Mr. Donald Anderson: This is a timely response to the continuing crisis in a friendly Commonwealth country. We know that many Commonwealth countries in southern Africa have committed manpower and materiel to help President Kabila in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He has no democratic mandate. By contrast, President Kabbah in Sierra Leone does have a democratic mandate. Can we expect a similar response from Commonwealth countries

in southern Africa, following the clear promises that were made as a Commonwealth to President Kabbah at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh in autumn 1997?

Mr. Cook: It is certainly true that several Commonwealth countries have a presence in the Congo, on both sides. In relation to Sierra Leone, no country could have done more than Nigeria has done in providing leadership. It has done so at considerable cost to the Nigerian armed forces, having lost around 1,000 men in fighting in Sierra Leone. Nigeria still has two battalions in Sierra Leone, which are now attached to the UN forces. We are in contact with Nigeria to see if it can in any way strengthen its contribution in the current circumstances.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I offer my support for the action taken and for the stated objective. In particular, I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary's response with regard to the United Nations. It would be curious indeed if a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations were not willing to provide such assistance as he has just described.
The Foreign Secretary will accept that the mission may be no picnic—if he will forgive the colloquialism. The situation is deteriorating hourly. Is he able to say, perhaps after consultation with the Secretary of State for Defence, when HMS Illustrious will be available to provide air support, because there are circumstances in which that may become very important?
Is the Foreign Secretary familiar with the inelegant but illuminating American expression "mission creep"? It describes a situation in which troops deployed for one purpose slowly, under pressure of events and with the best intentions, find themselves drawn into operations for which they are not prepared, trained or equipped. Can we be satisfied that the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary will keep a close eye on the operations to ensure that that does not occur?
It is an open secret that plans for evacuation from another country several thousand miles to the south of Sierra Leone have been drawn up in recent weeks. Can we be satisfied that if it comes to the point of evacuation in Zimbabwe—although we all hope that it does not—there will be sufficient resources to enable that to take place? Does not the evacuation from Sierra Leone point up the importance of conducting those events effectively and efficiently, as an example, to make it clear that if we have to carry out a similar mission in Zimbabwe, we will be well able to do so?

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for stressing our duties as a permanent member of the Security Council. It is plainly incumbent on us to do all that we can to assist the UN presence in Sierra Leone. HMS Illustrious is available now, in the sense that it has been detached from its present duties. If required, it could reach Sierra Leone in a matter of days.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether those troops being deployed have been trained for such a mission. The spearhead battalion is specifically on call as a rapid reaction force in the event of such an evacuation being required. It is prepared and trained for the task and will do its job professionally and competently.
I heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about another country, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down that path. Following


discussion of evacuation plans, threats are now being made to British nationals in Zimbabwe. The less that we encourage that, the better.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Rightly or wrongly, the Government have made a major, open-ended commitment. Does that commitment have the approval of Jerry Rawlings and the Government of Ghana?

Mr. Cook: I cannot say that we have consulted President Rawlings specifically on the statement that I have made, but Ghana has been very supportive of the efforts made by ECOWAS and ECOMOG to restore peace in Sierra Leone. It is a full supporter of the Lome agreement, and I have no reason to doubt that the Government of Ghana would associate themselves fully with many of the things that I have said about the RUF.

Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the House is massively in favour of support for the democratic Government of Sierra Leone, and that it condemns absolutely the terrifying behaviour of the RUF. However, I hope that he will be kind enough to answer two questions. First, is not the lesson to be learned from this matter that, when an agreement such as the Lomé agreement is in doubt and United Nations troops are sent in, they must be armed sufficiently to cope with the type of situation that can arise? In Sierra Leone, for example, 500 such troops have been captured.
Secondly, what does the Foreign Secretary mean when he says that Britain will not abandon its commitment to Sierra Leone? That could be taken as a very wide statement, which might well mean that we would have to use British troops for some considerable time to sustain a peace structure in Sierra Leone. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give the House a little more detail of what his statement means, so that it is not misinterpreted.

Mr. Cook: I am happy to pick up the right hon. Gentleman's second point. As I said in my statement, Britain is the leading international country providing support for the peace process. We have put in more money than any other nation—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asks me to elaborate, and I am doing so. Britain has put in more bilateral aid than any other nation, and almost £70 million has been committed to the peace process over the past two years.
In military terms, we are in the lead when it comes to training an army for the Government of Sierra Leone. One of the tragedies for the country is that the Government have no army, as all the members of the former army deserted in 1997.
We are also providing 15 UN observers attached to the UN force, but we have no intention of providing combat troops for that force. I hope that I have reassured the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
I have much sympathy with the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the lessons to be learned from this episode. When UN member states contribute forces to UN operations, it is imperative that they provide both the appropriate number of troops and all the equipment that

they need. It is the responsibility of contributor nations to decide what equipment and weapons troops should take to such operations.
The UN pays for such contributions. When I spoke to Kofi Annan at the weekend, I suggested that in future the UN should assess not only the quantity of troops that it pays for in such operations, but the quality of their support and discipline.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the city of Hull is twinned with Freetown? Over the past few decades, a close and continuing relationship has developed, and we have help to train local government personnel and others. The events that have unfolded over the past few weeks have caused much shock and horror, and aroused fears that terrible scenes of butchery might be seen again in Sierra Leone.
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that British nationals and others for whom the Government have a responsibility will be protected and helped, and that a similar degree of protection will be extended to those citizens of Sierra Leone and of Freetown who have co-operated happily with the NGOs and others? Will he ensure that their co-operation will not cause them to be singled out as victims if the RUF should turn out to be successful?
Finally, I thank my right hon. Friend for his robust statement, and the robust riposte that he gave to the speech of the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), which was one of the most disgraceful things that I have heard in the House for a long time.

Mr. Cook: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the hopes of the people of Sierra Leone, and those in Britain who are concerned about their welfare, being dashed. What has happened in the past week has been particularly cruel, given the enormous hope that was invested in the peace agreement a year ago. I remember, just about a year ago, speaking personally with President Kabbah after he had toured the country selling the details of the peace agreement. He told me of the joy, the elation and the relief of the people he addressed at the prospect of peace and an end to violence and repression by the RUF. We must not let that hope die—we must make sure that we restore the peace that was promised a year ago. We will do all we can to ensure that that peace is rebuilt and that the people of Sierra Leone have the right to enjoy the same stability and peace as any of us. However, I must be candid and honest about this—I cannot offer them the military protection that we are currently providing to secure the evacuation of our own nationals.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Given the litany of the thousands of awful murders and mutilations that the Foreign Secretary referred to, does he accept that his foreign policy on Sierra Leone over the past three years has not been a success? Does he remember the Prime Minister's official spokesman saying two years ago that it did not really matter because the good guys won? Does he regret that? Does he regret not listening some two and a half years ago to the advice of Peter Penfold, when high commissioner? He was then supporting President Kabbah,


who wished to stage a coup—a counter coup—which might not have led to the terrible murders that we have seen in the past three years as a result?

Mr. Cook: The whole House will appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has uncorked the ancient vinegar. I think it regrettable that there is any Member of the House who cannot rise to the gravity of the situation faced by 500 British nationals and those UN forces engaged in the field.
The hon. Gentleman referred to President Kabbah staging a coup—rather curious, considering that he was elected by the people of Sierra Leone.

Mr. Robathan: Counter coup.

Mr. Cook: I think that "counter" came after the hon. Gentleman originally said that it was a coup. I presume that the hon. Gentleman was making a reference to Sandline. The liberation of Sierra Leone that occurred in 1998 had nothing whatever to do with Sandline, and everything to do with Nigerian troops, which took a large number of casualties in the process. The truth is that, in the present situation, mercenaries would be nothing but a menace.

Jane Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that a way should be found for the wider international community, whether that be Commonwealth nations, inside or outside Africa, to assist further? Britain is doing a most commendable job in attempting to protect British nationals, but there is a much wider task to be done. Does he also agree that there must be scope for the international community to address the politics of diamonds, because the diamond trade has left a scar on Africa over the decades and the centuries?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes two important points. If we are to contain the conflicts of Africa, it is important that Africa develops professionalism and competence in peacekeeping. I am pleased that Britain is playing an important role in this, given the number of military advisory training teams that we have in Africa, including a large one in Ghana, which I visited while calling upon President Rawlings. I am grateful to Ghana for its support in providing a centre for excellence in peacekeeping training.
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about diamonds. It is a great tragedy that the conflicts in Sierra Leone, and also in the Congo and Angola, have been fuelled by the attempts of various armed groups to obtain control of the diamonds fields. It is extremely difficult to control the flow of diamonds from such African countries, which have large borders and difficult terrain. However, the trade in uncut diamonds is relatively modest and concentrated, and it should not be beyond the wit of the international community to find a better way of regulating it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Sierra Leonean community in this country will be grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for his welcome support for the United Nations. Does he envisage taking any action, perhaps in New York, to ensure that the UN is strengthened in whatever ways it needs to see through its mission? In the

context of the Commonwealth, can he ensure that the guarantor powers are supported in trying to maintain the democratic regime, and that the Sankoh regime will be undermined and dealt with? Lastly, will he undertake that Sierra Leoneans who are his consular responsibility and are in the queue to come to the UK will be dealt with as quickly and humanely as possible, and that there is no repetition of occurrences in which people seeking properly to join family in the UK have had to leave Sierra Leone and go to other countries to wait in a long queue before they could be processed?

Mr. Cook: First, I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest. A large community of people from Sierra Leone is resident in Britain, and those people will closely watch what the Government do to assist in their home country.
In relation to the UN in New York, I have already approached Kofi Annan to discuss how we can help with the present operation. The immediate priority is to try to provide support and strengthening for the current operation to overcome the crisis. Questions may remain to be asked about the mandate and the terms of operation for the future, but the immediate priority must be to ensure that the operation has adequate strength.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall deal with all British nationals and passport holders without distinction or discrimination, and shall seek to ensure that they are all evacuated safely.

Mr. Bruce George: I believe that most Members will applaud the Government's efforts in committing British forces. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on avoiding reciprocation of pathetic political point scoring. We ought to send out a message of consensus.
If a message is to be given to the butchers, the sending of the Royal Marines, the Parachute Regiment, HMS Ocean and an aircraft carrier with aircraft is a powerful one, and I hope that that will be appreciated. I shall enter into negotiations with the Secretary of State for Defence to invite him or the Minister of State to discuss deployment with the Select Committee on Defence.
Finally, illicit diamonds are normally associated with mercenaries. How high up the agenda is legislation or a White Paper on the exercise of a degree of control on that rather squalid, sordid industry?

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the dignity of his contribution. He is right to remind us all that this is a grave matter on which we should respond as a nation, not as partisans.
We promised a Green Paper on mercenaries in response to the Select Committee's report on Sierra Leone last year, and work is well developed. I hope that we may take it forward. I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of diamonds.
My hon. Friend made an observation about hearing from a Minister at the Ministry of Defence. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence heard that observation, and I should not dream of interfering in those negotiations.

Mr. Bowen Wells: In view of the fact that the neighbouring country of Liberia supports the RUF and Mr. Sankoh, what approach has the Foreign


Secretary made to the leadership in Liberia for assistance in trying to bring about the resumption of a peaceful solution to the problems facing Sierra Leone?
Secondly, on diamonds, how far has the Foreign Office gone in its analysis of the situation, and in the actions that it tried to take through the UN and commercial trading operations—notably in Brussels—to contain the traffic, which would enable us to undermine the finance of the appalling rebels?

Mr. Cook: I have expressed our view to Liberia on many occasions during the past year—including face to face with the Foreign Minister of Liberia. In fairness, the surface evidence of the past few days is that Liberia has actually been putting pressure on Foday Sankoh to halt the violence and not to return to conflict. The Liberians are also playing a part in trying to negotiate the release of the detainees. At present, we do not have a complaint about the conduct of the Government of Liberia, although we are well aware of the long history to which the hon. Gentleman alludes.
In relation to diamonds, the international debate sparked off a very welcome contribution by De Beers, which made a responsible statement and suggestions. At the United Nations, the Fowler report on Angola highlighted several measures that could be taken, some of which are perhaps rather more ambitious than international agreement might attain. However, within the G8 we are making good progress towards a statement at the forthcoming meeting of Foreign Ministers in July. I hope that there will be some product when we meet—but, of course, that depends on agreement among eight countries.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I believe that the Government have acted rightly and properly in the grave circumstances described by my right hon. Friend. He mentioned his telephone conversation with Madeleine Albright and the American support. Has he made an approach to the French, or have they offered to give military support? Are the Russians and the Chinese being kept fully informed of developments in order to obtain their support within the UN?

Mr. Cook: We have held discussions in the UN Security Council, which, of course, involved all the permanent members. The Security Council issued a robust resolution condemning the actions of the RUF. I know that the council is constantly re-evaluating how it can support the mission in the field. Several British personnel are attached to the UN in relation to the planning and maintenance of that operation. We shall continue to use that and our role as a permanent member to keep the matter at the top of the UN's priorities.
We do not expect a military contribution from the French. They would reasonably expect us to be in the lead over Sierra Leone, just as we would expect them to be in the lead on an African country with which they had a historic connection. I briefed all the Ministers of the European Union when I met them at the weekend. I received strong support from them. We issued a statement condemning the actions of the RUF and supporting the UN mission.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Obviously, the Unionists support the statement made by the Secretary of

State. From that statement and from the lunch-time news, it is clear that the situation could rapidly decline. However, the right hon. Gentleman said that HMS Ocean and the support vessels could not reach the area for another week. How quickly could the spearhead battalion move from Dakar to Freetown international airport?

Mr. Cook: We anticipate that most of the battalion will be in place by tonight. The movement of the Army and the military assets that I described has been rapid, expeditious and impressively professional—a sentiment that I hope the House shares.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: No one will envy the Foreign Secretary and the Government the difficult decisions that they will face during the coming days. However, what the House, the country and—above all—our armed forces are owed is clarity about the mission. As the Foreign Secretary told us that the RUF has broken its commitment to the Lome accord, is it his view that the country has returned to a state of civil war? In effect, is the UN mission to implement the accord over? If the UN is to remain in the country, does it need a new mandate and a new mission? The whole question of the UN presence is one for grave consideration. The Foreign Secretary talked about logistics and giving vehicles to the UN force, but he made it explicit that there would be no combat troops. Does the Foreign Secretary understand my concern that we are on a slippery slope, with an unclear mandate for the UN? He said that the first duty of our armed forces was to protect British nationals, but then said that Britain would take a lead in restoring the peace process. Will he make it clear to the House that the armed forces currently being deployed to Sierra Leone will not be drawn into the civil war on the side of the Government?

Mr. Cook: I can certainly assure the House—as I have already done—that we have no intention of deploying combat troops as part of the UN mission. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). We are a permanent member of the Security Council. We cannot maintain that role and our leading role in the UN if we refuse to provide even logistic support to a UN force that is in the country and if we refuse to provide all possible bases on which that force can succeed—even though we may not be part of it.
I frankly disagree with the sentiments expressed on whether the United Nations mission should be withdrawn and on whether its mandate was over because it had failed. I cannot think of a better way to give comfort and encouragement to the RUF than to agree with those sentiments.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: With the Secretary of State for Defence at his side, will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to endorse the need for highly mobile rapid reaction forces such as we have deployed to Dakar? No unit is better suited to that purpose than the Parachute Regiment, which was deployed last June in Kosovo.
In response to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), the Foreign Secretary suggested that the spearhead battalion would move to Freetown, presumably with the intention of holding the international airport there. Are the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State


for Defence satisfied that we have sufficient troops for that purpose, should they meet resistance when they get there?

Mr. Cook: At present, Lungi airport is in the hands of the United Nations, so we do not anticipate resistance when we deploy there. Yes, we are confident that we have sufficient troops for the purpose for which they have been sent.
The hon. Gentleman is right to stress how this event underlines the importance of rapid reaction forces, and we attached priority to them in the recent strategic defence review. I had a chance to observe the Parachute Regiment in action in Pristina when I visited the town. It did an extremely professional job and maintained peace in the streets of Pristina. It is a tribute to the regiment that the local people greatly regretted its withdrawal.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Could the Foreign Secretary tell us a little more about security sector reform? He said that £70 million had been spent already in aid for security sector reform. What does he think that money has achieved over the past 12 months and can we have an assurance that aid to Sierra Leone will continue?

Mr. Cook: First, the £70 million—it is actually £69 million plus—was for all the aid and development assistance in Sierra Leone and not just for the security sector; it has been committed, but not necessarily all been spent. However, it is by far the largest national contribution to Sierra Leone and much of it is being used to fund the demobilisation and reintegration programme and to provide general economic assistance to build up the capacity of the Government of Sierra Leone.
Specifically, quite a significant sum is also going into the development of the training of an army for the Government of Sierra Leone. Considerable progress has been made, but we must remember that we are starting from almost zero and dealing with a Government who have faced serious rebel challenges on several occasions and who had absolutely no army left of their own. Against that background, we are making good progress and I believe that we were on target to meet our original aim of providing the Government with an army to replace the United Nations force when it withdrew.

Dr. Julian Lewis: It is common ground on both sides of the House that a force should be sent to protect British citizens. However, how would the Foreign Secretary reconcile a medium or longer-term commitment in any wider capacity whatever with the admission made by the Secretary of State for Defence only a few weeks ago that British forces are already significantly overstretched?

Mr. Cook: There is no question of a long-term commitment by the troops that have been sent. On overstretch, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the issue exercises both the House and the Government. At the height of the Kosovo involvement, we had a 47 per cent. overstretch, but I am pleased to tell the House that that is now reduced to 27 per cent., which is exactly the degree of overstretch that we inherited from the previous Government.

Points of Order

Mr. Mike Hancock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, during Culture. Media and Sport questions, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) mentioned me in his question to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman attempted to be mischievous and to mislead the House, and he did not forewarn me that he was going to mention me. It was the second time in three weeks that he had done that, and I ask whether that was in order.
Secondly, I should like to take this opportunity to put the record straight. At no time have I talked down the interests of Portsmouth or—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I can deal with the first point, which is a point of order—the second point is a matter for debate, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find his own way of putting it right. I endorse his feelings that we do better in this place when courtesies between right hon. and hon. Members are recognised. If one hon. Member refers to another, it is proper that he give notice.

Mr. Hancock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to inform you that, on this occasion, I gave the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North notice that I was going to raise the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I naturally assumed that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to report to the House that, sadly, Mr. Stan Hurrell, who took over his father's business and served the House by providing our newspapers for 58 years, died on Friday night in St. Thomas's hospital. His family, who were with him, will continue the business. Many Members, including the Father of the House, have been in touch with the family, who maintained the newsagents outside the tube station and with whom the Serjeant at Arms, his predecessors and Members had many dealings.
I thought that the House would like to know that the family are very grateful for the huge support that they have been given by Members. Mr. Hurrell's death from cancer was long and painful, but the end came peacefully.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that sad event to the wider attention of hon. Members. As he said, many of us remember the long and dedicated service that Mr. Hurrell gave to this House and to individual Members. We were sad that he suffered so long from such a debilitating illness, which he bore very bravely. I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to extend their sympathy to Mr. Hurrell's widow and family at this sad time.

Orders of the Day — Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 8

DELEGATION OF COMMISSIONERS' FUNCTIONS

'.—(1) Anything authorised or required by or under any enactment to be done by a relevant Commissioner may be done by any member of the staff of that Commissioner who is authorised for the purpose (whether generally or specifically) by that Commissioner.

(2) In this section "relevant Commissioner" means the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the Security Service Act Commissioner, the Intelligence Services Act Commissioner or any Surveillance Commissioner.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Investigatory Powers Commission—

'.—(1) There shall be a body of Commissioners named the Investigatory Powers Commission, consisting of the Investigatory Powers Commissioners.
(2) The Commissioner under section 8 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, the Security Service Act Commissioner, the Intelligence Services Act Commissioner, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner and the ordinary Surveillance Commissioners shall each henceforth be known as Investigatory Powers Commissioners.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the discharge under the general direction of the Commission of any of the functions of one Commissioner by any Commissioners.
(4) The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the Commissioners to be chairman of the Commission.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2) insofar as it regulates the number of Commissioners.
(6) Schedule (Investigatory Powers Commission) shall have effect with respect to the Commission.
(7) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
Government amendments Nos. 36 to 38, 68 to 83, 87 and 88.
New schedule 1—'INVESTIGATORY POWERS COMMISSION—

1. The Investigatory Powers Commission may appoint such officers and servants as they think fit, including investigating officers, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of service.
2. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission may make arrangements for the regulation of their business.

3. The arrangements may, with the approval of the Secretary of State provide for the discharge under the general direction of the Commission of any of the Commission's functions by any Commissioner.
4 Anything done by a Commissioner shall have the same effect as if done by the Commission.'.
Government amendments Nos. 55, 92 and 93.

Jane Kennedy: As I am speaking to the Government new clause and amendments, it might help if I explain their purpose and deal with issues that we debated in Committee and that were raised on Second Reading. I wish to make it clear that we have listened carefully to hon. Members' comments and have sought to address their concerns in our amendments.
As I said during the Standing Committee debate, we are sympathetic to the need to rationalise the system of commissioner oversight that we are introducing, wherever possible. However, we are not considering going as far as is suggested in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and his colleagues, which would establish a single unified commission. In Committee, I outlined our thinking on the matter, pointing out that we believe that combining the various secretariats to the commissioners into a single body will achieve most of the benefits of amalgamating the commissioners' roles without sacrificing their distinctiveness.
There are strong arguments for retaining separately in statute the identity of some commissioners, who are experts in their respective fields, regularly visiting those agencies whose activities they oversee. Therefore, as I said in Committee, they are a more effective check than could be a body of commissioners whose responsibilities ranged widely across the spectrum of investigatory powers.
In Committee, I raised questions of accountability and security. Amalgamating commissioners' functions would risk obscuring the lines of accountability and compromising their expertise. The system proposed in the Bill is designed to ensure that the need-to-know principle is strictly observed and that details about particular individuals are shared to the minimum extent possible. Within a unified secretariat, members of staff would work for particular commissioners and this principle could be maintained. Amalgamating different commissioners' functions would make this considerably more difficult.
For those reasons, we tabled Government amendments Nos. 55 and 75, and new clause 8. Between them, those amendments would ensure that each of the commissioners was properly provided with staff who could act on their behalf, thereby facilitating the creation of a unified secretariat. In Committee, I referred to an audit team being sent out under the auspices of the interception of communications commissioner to examine communications data requests. The Government's intention is to create not only a unified secretariat but an investigative secretariat, along the lines suggested in the new schedule. Those staff would act entirely in accordance with a plan established by the commissioners.
The commissioners must be satisfied that the arrangements for oversight are such that they can genuinely report to the Prime Minister at the end of each year on the operation of the powers. That said, I see no reason why they personally need to visit police stations


up and down the land to check, for example, the process for recording authorisations for directed surveillance and the question of whether particular directed surveillance was authorised properly.
The surveillance commissioners established under the Police Act 1997 already have a secretariat. We intend that that secretariat, which is geographically split between London, Edinburgh and Belfast, should be augmented so that it provides for the interception commissioner, intelligence services commissioner and security service commissioner. That does not go as far as the single, unified commission proposed in the Opposition amendments; none the less, I hope that, after listening to my assurances, the Opposition will feel able to withdraw their amendments and accept instead the Government amendments. Our amendments do not go quite as far as the Opposition's in terms of what is on the face of the Bill, but they do go most of the way toward ensuring the consistency that the Opposition want.
I turn my attention to amendments Nos. 36 to 38. Clause 18 places a duty on persons involved in interception of communications to keep secret matters relating to that work and all aspects of interception warrants, and it introduces an offence of unauthorised disclosure. Clause 50 imposes a similar duty to keep secret the giving of certain decryption notices under part III, their contents and related matters. The Bill as it stands does not make express provision to allow disclosures to be made to any commissioner, including the interception commissioner. That is clearly a deficiency and the amendments will correct it, ensuring that even if internal safeguards were to fail, no one would be barred by the criminal law from bringing a matter to the attention of a commissioner.
The remaining amendments, Nos. 68 to 83, 87 to 88 and 92 to 93, deal with the covert investigations commissioner. In Standing Committee, I stated that there might be scope for amalgamating the role of the covert investigations commissioner—the only new commissioner created by the Bill—with that of the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners established by the Police Act. That is what the amendments are designed to achieve. Amalgamating those roles will facilitate consistency in oversight across those public authorities other than the intelligence services that carry out activities under part II.
I hope that those measures will reassure the House that we are doing all we can to ensure that oversight of the powers in the Bill is as seamless as possible, while respecting the properly different functions of the existing commissioners to whom the Bill refers. I believe that the amendments respond to the Opposition's criticisms regarding the Bill's over-bureaucratic tendencies.

Mr. Oliver Heald: On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made the point that part IV is over-bureaucratic. She said:
We already have a Security Service Act commissioner, an Intelligence Services Act commissioner, a chief surveillance commissioner and ordinary surveillance commissioners. None of those appears to have an independent investigatory team available to them.

In connection with the two additional commissioners referred to in the Bill and mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my right hon. Friend said:
I seems that the Government believe that commissioning should be a growth industry.—[Official Report, 6 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 782.]
5.30 pm
We discussed that at length in Committee, and the way in which the debate unfolded was helpful. The Opposition pointed out that there would be at least one extra commissioner, that he would not have any staff and that the proposal was not in the best interests of regulation. The Opposition argued that the work should be streamlined and that the proposed commissioners should have real teeth—the ability to investigate. The Minister has tabled new clauses and amendments that meet many of our concerns.
By allowing members of staff authorised by the commissioner to undertake the work of the commissioner, by reducing the proposed number of commissioners by eliminating the covert investigations commissioner and giving his role to the chief surveillance commissioner, and by providing staff for the purpose of investigation to both commissioners, the Minister has met most of our concerns. The unified secretariat does not go as far as a unified commission, but it is a substantial step in the right direction.
The issue of disclosure to the commissioner was raised in Committee, although it was not a major issue between us. Nevertheless, I am glad to see the technical changes that are being made. The other points made by the Minister meet many of our concerns. In the light of her comments, I do not intend to pursue our new clause and new schedule.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am glad to be present, although I feel slightly disadvantaged by the fact that, for very good reasons, my two colleagues who served on the Committee cannot attend. The expertise is therefore elsewhere.
Hon. Members from all parties who are members of the Intelligence and Security Committee would have wished to be present, so it is unfortunate that Report and Third Reading are taking place on a day when they are all away on Committee business, and that they could not be accommodated.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am acutely aware of the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee is in Washington this week. I met the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) to discuss that beforehand, and we did our best through the usual channels to reschedule the debate, but were unable to do so, despite the fact that it would have been better for the consideration of the Bill for all members of the Committee, particularly those who served on the Standing Committee, to be present. I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Gentleman, which we did our best to meet.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister. I intended no criticism of him or his colleagues. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed


(Mr. Beith), like hon. Members from other parties, would have liked to attend, and I know that efforts were made to facilitate that.
May I pass on to the House the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who has particular technical expertise in the matters that we are discussing? I am told that the one south Yorkshire event of the year that he cannot miss is the cutlers feast, which is attended by 500 of the greatest and the best in the commercial world of south Yorkshire. [Interruption.] That is confirmed by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) from the Conservative Front Bench. As the guest speaker today is my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam did not feel that he could be absent from the event.
I read and followed the debates in Committee. We welcome the simplification of the commissioner system. We support the amendments and new clauses and the thrust of those tabled by the Conservative party. We argued for, and are glad to see, the recognition of the need for a proper secretariat. That clearly was a lacuna. The system cannot be run without adequate back-up, as Ministers have recognised.
We argue that prior judicial authorisation is one of the best ways of ensuring that the right decisions are taken by commissioners and others. We shall come to amendments and new clauses that take us back to that debate.
I appreciate that there is a disagreement between us, but we perceive that as the preferred way of encircling the procedures. I expect that the matter will be left to the other place, where others will want to pick it up. Even if our proposal is not accepted, a properly resourced secretariat that supports the commission's decisions is likely to achieve the best result.
I want to ask the Minister about the implications of new clause 8, which states:
Anything authorised or required by or under any enactment to be done by a relevant Commissioner may be done by any member of the staff of that Commissioner who is authorised for the purpose (whether generally or specifically)…
That might be fine in principle, but we need to ensure that the senior and accountable person makes the decisions and that responsibility is not delegated too much or too far.
Our discussion is similar to the debate on whether the Home Secretary or the chief constable of a police force signs a warrant and is thus responsible. I should like some assurance from the Minister that the new clause does not hide an intention to delegate. The intention should be for the commissioners to make the decisions, especially when there will be fewer commissioners—rightly, in our view—and the number of those who can properly cover both tasks, which were originally separated, has been reduced by one.
I should also be grateful for illumination on how far and how often the Government envisage delegation taking place. Again, I am not asking for a conclusive answer, but am registering the importance of commissioners, who have been appointed because of their expertise, authority,

public recognition and acceptance, and not people further down the chain of command, making decisions on the public's behalf about sensitive and delicate subjects.

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful for the thoughtfulness with which hon. Members have responded to the debate. Given the general support for our proposals, I shall not test hon. Members' patience by making a long speech. However, in response to the point of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), it is for the commissioners to determine the extent of delegation. As I said earlier, the commissioners have to report directly to the Prime Minister. They must be satisfied that their reports are full, accurate and thoroughly investigated and that they are able to stand by them. It is therefore proper for them to decide the extent of the delegation. I expect it to be to the level in the secretariat that is appropriate to the investigation. I hope that that provides the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

OFFENCES

'.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) with intent to impede access to protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form, he fails to comply, in accordance with any section 46 notice, with a requirement of that notice to disclose a key to protected information; and
(b) he is a person who has possession of the key.

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he fails to comply, in accordance with any section 46 notice, with a requirement of that notice to disclose a key to protected information;
(b) he is a person who has had possession of the key, but that key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it; and
(c) with intent to impede access to protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form, that he did not, before that time, make a disclosure, to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key, of all such information in his possession as was required by that person to enable possession of the key to be obtained.

(3) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence (subject to subsection (4)) for that person to show—

(a) that it was not reasonably practicable for him to make a disclosure of the key before the time by which he was required to do so;
(b) where the key was not in his possession at that time, that it was not reasonably practicable for him, before that time, to make such a disclosure as is mentioned in subsection (2)(c); and
that as soon after that time as it was reasonably practicable for him to make a disclosure of the key or (if earlier) of sufficient information to enable possession of the key to be obtained, he made such a disclosure to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key.

(4) Except in a case where there is no authorisation for the purposes of section 47, in proceedings for an offence under this section a person shall have a defence under subsection (3) only if he also shows that it was not reasonably practicable for him to comply with the requirement in the manner allowed by that section.

(5) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for that person to show that—

(a) at all material times he used due diligence to store the key which he had or had had in his possession; and
(b) that were the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it, that he did before that time, make a disclosure to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key, of all such information to his possession as was required by that person to enable possession of the key to be obtained.

(6) Where a person is being proceeded against for an offence under this section, then at any stage of the proceedings, if evidence has been given of his having failed to comply with any requirement of a section 46 notice to disclose a key to protected information, the following evidence shall be admissible for the purpose of proving that he had an intention to impede access to protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form—

(a) evidence that he has or has had in his possession other information of value on grounds falling within section 46(3) or likely to be of value for purposes connected with the exercise or performance by any public authority of any statutory power or statutory duty; and
(b) provided that seven days notice in writing has been given to him of the intention to prove the conviction, evidence that he has within the [five] years preceding the date of the offence charged been convicted of any offence carrying a maximum sentence on conviction on indictment of five years imprisonment or more.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.'.—[Mr. Heald.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Heald: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 7—Failure to comply with a notice to disclose a key to protected information—
'(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) with intent to impede access to protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form, he fails to comply in accordance with a section 46 notice with a requirement of that notice to disclose a key to protected information;
(b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that possession of the key is necessary to obtain access to the protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form; and
(c) he is a person who has, or who after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose the key, had possession of the key.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he fails to comply in accordance with a section 46 notice with a requirement of that notice to disclose a key to protected information;
(b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that possession of the key is necessary to obtain access to the protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form;

(c) he a person—

(i) who has had possession of the key; and
(ii) who has, or who after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose the key had, possession of information which would (either on its own or in combination with other information) enable possession of the key to be obtained; and
(d) with intent to impede access to protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form, he did not before the time by which he was required to disclose the key, make a disclosure to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key of all such information in his possession which would (either on its own or in combination with other information) enable possession of the key to be obtained.
(3) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for that person to show—

(a) in the case of an offence under subsection (1), that it was not reasonably practicable for him to make a disclosure of the key before the time by which he was required to do so;
(b) in the case of an offence under subsection (2), that it was not reasonably practicable for him, before the time by which he was required to disclose the key, to make such a disclosure as is mentioned in subsection 2(d); and
(c) where in either case it has since that time become reasonably practicable for him to make a disclosure of the key or of information which would (either on its own or in combination with other information) enable possession of the key to be obtained, he has made such a disclosure to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key.
(4) Except in a case where there is no authorisation for the purposes of section 47, in proceedings for an offence under this section a person shall have a defence under subsection (3) only if he also shows that it was not reasonably practicable for him to comply with the requirement in the manner allowed by that section.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.'.
Government amendments Nos. 39 and 67.
Amendment No. 18, in page 51, line 10, leave out Clause 49.
Amendment No. 20, in clause 51, page 53, line 42, at end add—
'(aa) that a key disclosed in pursuance of a section 46 notice is stored safely and kept safe at all times;'.
Government amendments Nos. 89 and 90.

Mr. Heald: This group of new clauses and amendments is at the heart of the Opposition's anxieties about the Bill. New clause 1 is an attempt to deal with the controversy about clause 49 that has raged since the first consultations on it.
Clause 49 makes it an offence punishable by two years' imprisonment to fail to comply with a notice that requires the production of a key to coded information—an encryption key. The criticisms are made from two perspectives, which are different but none the less valid, in the Opposition's view.
The first criticism involves the punishment for failing to provide a decryption key. I pause to mention that the Minister has said that a key will be required only in cases in which the most suspicion arises and the Government


are least satisfied with the bona fides of the person from whom the key is sought, and that plain text will be adequate in other cases. Requests for keys will be made of those who are suspected of money laundering, paedophilia or drug trafficking. They are the sort of people who would be prepared to accept the lesser offence and take the two-year sentence rather than give up their secrets and make available information that could lead, after further investigation, to their prosecution for the most serious offences, carrying sentences of imprisonment for life or a long determinate period. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) on Second Reading and several times in Committee, but the Government are not prepared to tackle it.
The first criticism is that to ask for a key but not to be given one would be of no use to the Government, but the serious criminals whom they want to target would be all too prepared to contest the lesser offence in the hope that they might be acquitted. They will think two years much better than 10. Through the new clause, we have attempted to tackle the problem of the inadequate sentence. The second criticism, which is entirely different, is that the defendant will be required to prove his innocence and explain why he was unable to provide the key. The burden will be entirely on him to prove his innocence if it is shown that he failed to comply with the notice.
Apart from the criticism that that may breach the European convention on human rights, it is repugnant at law to require someone to prove his innocence. It goes against the golden thread that runs through English justice. Neither we nor those who are concerned about the matter have taken that lightly. Justice and the Foundation for Information Policy Research asked a leading barrister to consider the issue and produce advice on which we could deliberate in Committee. Tim Eicke has done that.
In Committee, I asked whether it would be possible for a Law Officer to address such issues so that we could have a detailed legal exposition of how the Government justify the offence. That did not happen; I chided the Minister, but he said he was certain that the offence was perfectly normal, and that it was not a matter of huge concern that an innocent person would be required to prove his innocence. However, it is worth considering what Tim Eicke and others have said. In his advice, he describes the offence as "repugnant".
We all know the careful way in which lawyers phrase things. In fact, the Minister criticised it in Committee, and told us that he hated lawyers. A barrister may say that something is doubtful or difficult, or that there are legal difficulties, but the use of the word "repugnant" shows that the problem is pretty serious. Tim Eicke describes the offence as repugnant because no guilty intention is required as a ground for a conviction. He says that in most offences, the prosecution has to prove not only that particular events occurred, but that someone had a guilty intention. For example, for theft, one has to be dishonest; for murder, one has at least to intend to cause grievous bodily harm. However, in this offence, if it is shown that someone did not comply with the notice served on him, the duty is on him to prove that he lost or forgot the key, or that there is some other innocent explanation.
5.45 pm
In his advice, Tim Eicke points out:
A defendant who chooses not to give or call evidence may be convicted without any mens rea—
any mental element—
of the offence being proved against him.
He refers to the views expressed in 1999 by the Lord Chief Justice in ex parte Kebeline, which was a case dealt with in the divisional court, and to the Canadian case of Whyte, which has a persuasive authority. He also quotes the words of Chief Justice Dickson. The Minister will remember these words; they are important:
If an accused is required to prove some fact on the balance of probabilities to avoid conviction, the provision violates the presumption of innocence because it permits a conviction in spite of a reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the guilt of the accused.
He points out a number of other infringements of, and difficulties with, the European convention on human rights.
The Opposition are not satisfied that an offence that a leading human rights barrister describes as repugnant should go on the statute book without the Minister having met the challenge of the ideas that have been presented to him and explained why it is right in this case that a man can be found guilty when he has no guilty intention. Why should someone have the burden of proving his innocence?
It is important to note that it is not only the main Opposition party that has made that point. The Liberal Democrats have also made it, and their new clause 7 tries to import into the Bill the concept that there should be a guilty mind, and an intention, before a person can be found guilty. Although they do not go as far as we do, like us they include the intention to impede access to justice or to prevent the information from being put into an intelligible form.
The Minister should explain how this provision conforms with the European convention on human rights. A man should be innocent until proven guilty. How does the Minister deal with that argument?
New clause 1 deals with the issues that I have described. It would increase the penalty for this offence to 10 years, which the Liberal Democrat new clause would not. It would also allow evidence of previous convictions or of other material found at the scene of a police investigation to be used to prove guilty knowledge. That is not unprecedented; it has been done before in other areas of law. If the police or other authorities go to a house and during their investigations they find, for example, a computer that has paedophiliac images of children, that evidence should be allowed to be used to point to the vast mass of encrypted material on the computer and the fact that when the accused was asked to produce the key to the information he refused to do so. The court could draw an inference of guilty knowledge.
With new clause 1, we are trying to target the offence more on serious criminals, while respecting human rights and the right of an individual to the type of fair trial that we have had in this country for hundreds of years. We hope that the Minister's response will be fuller on this issue here than it was in Committee.
Amendment No. 20 deals with what happens to a key once it has been disclosed. It would require a key disclosed in pursuance of a section 46 notice to be stored


safely and kept safe at all times. That relates to a separate concern of the industry. Encryption was not invented to help the criminal. It was invented because commercial enterprises wanted to be able to keep commercial transactions secret. Banks and financial institutions—some of the most important commercial enterprises in the country—rely on encryption to do their business.
One of the fears that those organisations have expressed to me, along with others—including all Opposition parties—is that if keys are not to be kept safe, or if the arrangements are not entirely satisfactory, there will be a fracturing of trust in the whole process of encryption. That could have a dramatic effect on business confidence in a new technology and a new industry—something that members of all parties profess to support, but that the Government endanger by failing to deal with the position fully. Both EURIM—the European Informatics Market—and the Foundation for Information Policy Research have made that point, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say about it.
In Committee, we said that the notices that the Bill requires to be served on companies and individuals should be obviously recognisable and verifiable, so that con merchants and others could not use the procedures while pretending to be the authorities. Under amendment No. 39, a notice under clause 46 will have to include the grounds for that notice, the office, rank or position of the notice giver, whether a plain text is sufficient, the time by which the notice must be complied with, and the manner of compliance. Both we and the Liberal Democrats suggested such measures in Committee, and we therefore welcome the amendment; but it does not go as far as we would have liked.
We wanted a system enabling all notices served under the Bill to be instantly recognisable, and to contain security information that could be checked through the use of ultra-violet light or other security methods. We wanted the establishment of a clear verification point where the industry could go to find out whether a notice was valid. Although reassurances have been given, it would be helpful if the Minister repeated them, and told us what point the deliberations have reached.
Government amendment No. 67 is also important, because it provides that the key will be required only in special circumstances. The Minister agreed to that in Committee. As I have said, that means that those who are asked for the key are far more likely to be those who are under suspicion, because plain text will be more readily satisfactory from those who are not under suspicion. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would explain a little more fully what he means by special circumstances. Has he a definition in mind, or is it important to use that term in order to provide a certain amount of flexibility?
Government amendments Nos. 89 and 90 exclude directors from liability under part III. They, too, meet concern expressed by Opposition Members in Committee, and show that on that occasion, the Minister was listening—but if he is prepared to listen in respect of little things, is it not time that he listened in respect of new clause 1?

Mr. Simon Hughes: Progress has been made since the Committee stage. The tenor of my remarks will reflect the tenor of what was said by the hon. Member for North-East

Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald): in Committee, he and his colleagues argued from much the same perspective as my colleagues, and I do not think it is any secret that in large measure they were advised by the same people—people with the same expertise and the same concerns.
The Liberal Democrats believe that new clause 1 is a move in the right direction, but, because it differs from our new clause 7 in certain particulars touched on by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, we naturally commend new clause 7 rather than new clause 1. I shall say more about that later. We consider Government amendments Nos. 39 and 67 to be improvements: I shall say more about those later as well. Amendment No. 18, tabled by Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, would delete the current offences provision—clause 49—because we feel that the clause gets the balance wrong. We support Conservative amendment No. 20, because it is geared to give additional protection. We hope that the Government's response will be positive. Government amendments Nos. 89 and 90 themselves constitute a positive response to concerns expressed in Committee, and we welcome them.
We consider all four Government amendments to be improvements, and feel that the additional single protection mechanism proposed by the Conservatives in amendment No. 20 should commend itself to the Government. However, we agree with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that the Government have still not dealt with the major concerns—concerns that are felt not just by buffs and hacks who live entirely in the world of information technology for reasons of work or interest, but by others who use e-commerce, e-mail and the rest.
Like other hon. Members, I have received representations not just from organisations but from individual constituents, who have expressed anxiety about potential criminal liability on the basis of their inability to disprove a negative. As the Minister knows, we have been over that ground recently. As I made clear on Second Reading and as my party has made clear throughout, we differ with the Conservatives on this part of the Bill, although not to a great extent. We agree with the Government that a Bill is needed to make this area of activity comply with the European convention on human rights. Because of the development of technology, certain activities take place that have not yet been brought under the umbrella of the convention, and it is important for us to have legislation for that purpose before 2 October this year, when the convention will become law in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We think it desirable to have a Bill, even one with flaws. The paradox is that, if the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I are right, there may well be an immediate failure to comply with the convention. It is, I think, no secret—indeed, it is an obvious, self-evident truth to me—that before long someone will test the Act's compatibility with the convention. It may not be some big corporate enterprise; it may be an individual who, having been served with a notice, finds that he cannot reasonably comply and is therefore liable to be punished as a criminal for failing to prove that he does not have information, has lost his password, cannot remember the code or cannot assist in decryption. That may happen regardless of innocence or guilt in relation to the substantive material; indeed, no offence may have been committed.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire cited pornographic material that might be used for purposes of paedophilia, an example that I gather was given often in Committee. The concern is understandable, but nothing of that nature might be involved. The person in question might have been falsely accused of having possessed material and subsequently got rid of it; he would then be served with a notice and, under the law as drafted, would be unable to get himself out of that hole. That is an important criminal line to cross.
6 pm
Let me again make the point that I made in Committee and elsewhere; I made it to the Minister during our consideration of the Terrorism Bill, on which we had a similar debate. The Government are duty bound—I accept that they do it in the proper manner—to certify in the Bill that they are European convention-compliant. They have done it in this Bill as they have elsewhere. They take advice. Clearly, they must act on that advice because, if they do not, they will be in default and, if taken to court and so on, they may be in difficulty.
There is a constitutional failure in the system, however. I understand that, if the Government seek legal advice and that advice says, "Don't do it. You would be acting illegally," they will pray in aid the exemption from the freedom of information legislation, saying, "This is not a matter of fact or statistics; it is not even an evaluation of facts or statistics. It is advice to Ministers, so we don't want to disclose it," but I have never understood why the Government are so reluctant to disclose the advice, which, by definition, they must claim supports their case.
If the Government—as they must have done and as they say they have done—have gone to those who advise them, whether in government or outside, and have said, "This is ECHR compliant," there may be a difference of view. The advice that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I have seen and the advice commissioned from elsewhere could at least be intelligently pitted against and put into a discussion with that other advice.
The problem is that, when we proceed in that way, with the Government being so secretive, the lay people, in a sense—because even those of us here who are qualified as lawyers are lay people—argue on the basis of advice given without expert guidance. That is exactly why the Special Standing Committee procedure is often useful: people can look at the implications and give their own legal advice.
Government—not necessarily only the present Government—do Parliament a disservice when they pray in aid advice that supports them while letting no one see it so that their argument cannot be tested by cross-examination and questioning.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern? The Attorney-General has said—I quoted the details in Committee—that the proper occasion for a justification of the issue of compatibility is a debate in the House. If Ministers are not prepared to go beyond the bald statement in the Bill and into the real detail, and to give

a full legal explanation of why they say it is compatible with the ECHR, that makes nonsense of the Attorney-General's comment.

Mr. Hughes: I agree. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am conscious of the two concerns; it is not new ground for those who served on the Committee or, indeed, who were here for the Second Reading debate. One is for the individual civil liberty of the individual citizen against the state that is seeking to interfere with his or her activities. The other is that business could potentially be harmed. Business will think, when deciding where to carry out its activity, that the regime in Britain will be less helpful and more dangerous and threatening to it than a regime elsewhere, so it will say, "Thank you very much, but we will take our business elsewhere."
There are those two concerns—not always, as it were, coming together on the same side. The problem as I see it—I come to it, as I have said, as a lay person—is that some people, to try to avoid being caught, will be pushed into taking measures that do not help the normal activity of the business. If the United Kingdom is much more draconian in that area than many other countries, and I understand that it is, that cannot be helpful for our position.
Again in passing, may I say that that is exactly the sort of area where the logical thing to do would be to have provisions that are as similar as possible to those in other countries—at least those throughout the European Union—so that we are not commercially disadvantaged in relation to countries with codes of rights, Bills of Rights or constitutions, such as those in Scandinavia or elsewhere.
Again, we had a similar debate when we considered the Terrorism Bill. The Minister says that what is being referred to is not a reverse burden of proof but a statutory defence. I understand that argument. In the case of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, the statutory defence will not be rarely used, as it will be in the case of the Terrorism Bill, under which on the widest definition it is likely to be pretty exceptional for someone to pray in aid that defence. In this case, it could apply at any time to any Tom, Dick or Harry, or to his female equivalent—big player or small player. Showing that he has legitimately forgotten something is much more likely to be difficult for the individual citizen than for the corporate enterprise.
My advice is that the power will be ineffective and that the real criminal will find ways round it. The Government are building in a great power and getting the balance wrong between the state and the individual, but they will not catch the real villains they want to catch because those people will be clever enough to work out ways to escape. They are the people who will refuse to give the keys, and who may escape.
I understand that that is the reason why the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire seeks to make the penalty bigger. He wants to make less aggressive the provision of the state, but he none the less wants to ensure that people who are caught are penalised. I understand that, although I disagree with it, as he knows. We think that that is far too great a penalty for what may be—although the courts will have discretion in the matter—a pretty minimal offence.
The key difference between the hon. Gentleman and us, which is why we cannot support new clause 1—we will not support it if it is voted on—is the ability to pray in


aid previous offences which may have nothing to do with a particular activity. I find that a worrying addition, which I do not understand. The hon. Gentleman would have been more likely to receive more widespread support if he had not included that in the new clause. I do not think that it adds to it at all.
Let me make one last general point. Those who know about these technical matters argue that, rather than having a heavy offence provision and draconian powers whereby the state and the prosecution authorities can effectively seek information from people who, if they cannot satisfy them, are liable to be found guilty, it would have been better to have facilitated the better technical use of the means of getting information—what I understand in the jargon is called forensic hacking, a concept which I understand and which might afford us a better approach. Those who are interested in and who know about these things argue that the current approach may be wrong. We can always concoct criminal procedures, structures and balances between the state and individual, but we might also have gone down that road.
I am conscious that the Data Protection Commissioner has expressed concerns about those things. Those have not changed, I understand, since they were expressed before the Bill went into Committee. I remind the Minister of that.
Government amendment No. 39 is a response to the amendment that was moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), which specifically sought to address the issue. We are grateful that the Government have responded to that and effectively given the exact response that we sought in Committee.
The same applies to Government amendment No. 67, applying to the additional test, which should be about the disclosure of data, not about the disclosure of keys. When the matter is looked at simply, it seems that it is far better to ask people to provide the data; only if the data are not or cannot be provided should we seek to get the key. Many people will find it much easier to provide just the hard copy, to put it crudely—to provide the print-off. The commercial world will be much more comfortable if it is asked to provide the data, rather than the key.
As I said, the Liberal Democrats support amendment No. 20. Although the amendment is simplistic in some ways, it is valid. Keys must be looked after properly, and, in theory, they will be. We have to ensure, however, that a delegated person—who may be third down in the chain of command—is not given responsibility for key security if he or she cannot do the job properly. The issue generally is important, but, commercially, it is potentially very important. We really have to ensure that, once keys are recovered by the authorities, they are properly looked after.
Government amendments Nos. 89 and 90 deal with company directors' liability—the key escrow by intimidation provisions—and address issues raised by my colleagues in Committee. We not only welcome but are grateful for those amendments.
Our new clause 7 seeks to address the keys issue. We still think—there is common ground among Opposition Members on this—that the prosecution should have to show intent to impede. We also still think that, using the usual test of beyond reasonable doubt, mens rea—guilty

mind—should have to be demonstrated. It must be demonstrated that the defendant acted not neutrally but intentionally in dealing with an inquiry.
Our new clause would require:
reasonable grounds for believing that possession of the key is necessary to obtain access to the protected information or—
for—
the putting of that information into an intelligible form.
We also believe that it is right—it seems to be self-evidently right—to insist that the defendant must have had the key after the notice was issued, as opposed to having had it at some time in the past. The Government are still arguing that both tests—that one has or that at some stage one had the key—should render one guilty. We think that failure to distinguish between the two cases would make the provision dangerously wide. Like Conservative Members, we argue that the provision needs to be narrowed.
Liberal Democrats believe that a defence should be available to defendants who provide the key or information after the notice's initial date requirement if it has been become reasonably practicable to provide it. We also argue that the offence should be split into two parts, to cover cases in which a person does not have the key, but could get it. Although such a provision may sound technical, people should know the charge they face and the procedure they should follow.
The danger of Conservative Members' new clause 1 is that, in the interests of advancing human rights in one sector—to protect people against, as I said on Second Reading, the overmighty powers of the state—we shall be removing defendants' usual human right not to reveal previous convictions. I argue that such a trade-off would be an excessive loss of human rights.
In Committee and elsewhere, the Minister has been very definite in saying that there would be no concessions on the issues addressed in this group of amendments. We are grateful, however, to note that Ministers have made a little movement around the edges of the central provision. Nevertheless, I should be troubled if Ministers were still unwilling to move on the main issue.
If the Government do not move on the main issue, if we cannot dislodge them in a Division on this group of new clauses and amendments and if Labour Back Benchers are not willing to acknowledge the civil liberties and balance of defence points, I am fairly confident that this is precisely the type of issue on which the paradox of this Parliament allows us to rely on the other place to make the case for civil liberties and for defendants and to reduce the state's power. If that happens and the other place amends part III, particularly clauses 46 to 49, I hope that the Government will think again and not seek to reinsert in the Bill that which we believe should not have been in it initially. Although we welcome the Government's movement on the issue, the key movement has not yet occurred. We hope that we can persuade them to make it.

Ms Margaret Moran: I really do want to make a very brief point on the length of sentences proposed in new clause 1. I do not wholly agree with the new clause's general content, but simply ask for a review of the penalties proposed for the offence. I do so based on concerns expressed by various children's charities—


primarily the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardos and NCH Action for Children—with which I have recently discussed the issue.
6.15 pm
Quite apart from the Bill's technical, legal and civil rights aspects, we have to consider the way in which some of the Bill's provisions are being regarded by some of those who—far from being techies—are very much in the real world and at the receiving end of the issues. We have to acknowledge that there is a rising tide of concern, particularly among parents, about internet safety for children.
Only a week or so ago, in Milton Keynes, not far from my own constituency, there was a case in which a 13-year-old girl turned up to meet someone whom she met in an internet chat room and believed was a 15-year-old boy, only to discover that he was a 47-year-old man who had travelled from Newcastle specifically to meet her. I am sure that the case alarmed every parent who heard about it, and that those parents immediately began looking more closely at their children's internet activities.
Additionally, as we know, the internet contains websites showing pornographic, violent or racist material. Just last week, in my constituency, there was a case involving a website used by prisoners in the United States to display very disgusting material. They are also using internet chat sites that could be accessed by children. Most of the material is grossly offensive and highly unsuitable for children. We also know that e-mail is being abused by paedophiles seeking to make contact with children and for many other offensive activities.
The concern is that the advent of strong encryption technologies gives criminals the opportunity to hide their criminal activities or to conceal other evidence. If a paedophile has on his computer files e-mail messages, pictures or other material that discloses a serious sexual offence against a child—an offence for which he knows he could face a prison term of 10 years or more—he could encrypt the lot and, if investigated by police, simply refuse to hand over the key to decrypt the files, thus making unavailable evidence of a serious offence.
The other concern is that, in the Bill, the maximum penalty provided for defendants who refuse to hand over a key would be two years and a fine. With time-off for good behaviour, such a person might spend only a few weeks in prison. Subsequently, they might even be able to apply for and gain employment with children, in a school or residential centre. We should also remember that—because encryption technology has allowed the person very effectively to cover his tracks—there will be nothing on record showing that the person has a history of sexual offences.
Such a possibility raises issues about the Bill's relationship to protection of children legislation. Having worked on the Protection of Children Act 1999, I think that we have to ensure that such people are effectively registered, and that the protections offered by the 1999 Act apply also in internet cases, as if the evidence were in writing.
The Bill makes major improvements on the current situation, which would not allow for prosecution in such cases. Nevertheless, the situation will still not be

satisfactory. We need seriously to review the penalties provided in this part of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will listen to the message from children's charities. The issue does raise complex civil liberties issues, and there are no ready-made answers, but, when children's charities tell us that there is great and growing unease, we have seriously to examine how the Bill will impact on the protection of children.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I completely understand the argument that the hon. Lady is presenting, but does she, and do those in the children's charity world to whom she has talked, accept that the paradox and the danger are that one might be able to catch the relatively minor offender but that we need to think more widely if we are to get the real villains—the big-time criminals and serial offenders whose activities we want to stop—because they are the most likely to escape the system?

Ms Moran: Indeed, the issue is more complex than one of sentences alone. As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, we may need to consider other measures to provide the widest possible safeguards.
It is outside the remit of the Bill, but there is a need for a review of how technology interacts with child protection and sexual offences legislation so that we can provide the widest possible protection not only for our children, but for those who may be vulnerable to people who seek to abuse the new technologies in ways that we may not have anticipated.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I shall be brief, because many of the points that I wanted to make have already been made by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
I am not a lawyer. I have some technology interests, which are fully disclosed. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who told us of some valid concerns that have been expressed by children's charities. Industry is also concerned, for different reasons, so there are pressures on the Minister from many different directions. I am on record as saying that we should have a Bill to deal with these matters, and I think that he made valiant efforts in Committee to listen to the concerns expressed by Opposition Members. The Bill is slowly improving but, as the new clauses and amendments show, we are not absolutely certain about it.
Regardless of whether my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) wants to press the matter to a vote, it is important that the relevant considerations are taken into account in another place. If, for example, there is still a fear that the European convention on human rights will be breached, the Bill will run into real problems, even though the Government's objectives in introducing it are very important.
Industry has concerns about individuals and companies being pressured to disclose a key that may not be in their possession, because the burden of proof seems to be the wrong way round. The Minister must bear that in mind constantly and act appropriately before the Bill is enacted.
Among the expressions of concern is a letter from Vodafone dated 6 April. It says that the provisions are
not practicable; the key could be lost or no longer used, etc. Industry may have no choice but to place their keys with secure third parties and thus it seems to be a way of reintroducing key escrow.


I was the Minister who dealt with such matters and proposed key escrow, and I am sensitive to the fact that industry still has concerns about its coming in through the back door.
Industry is also concerned about security following disclosure of the key. The letter from Vodafone says:
In our opinion, disclosure of the key in the first instance would make most industries feel their security has been compromised and this has implications for e-commerce, an environment where consumers require complete confidence in the security of service providers.
That is the conundrum in the Bill: encryption is vital to encourage confidence in e-commerce, but the wrong sort of disclosure could undermine that confidence. If the person who had served the warrant mishandled the key or the information, there could be considerable problems.
I know that the Government understand the concerns and are trying to respond to them, but the problem, as information supplied to EURIM—the European informatics market group confirms, is that companies are beginning to move their offices offshore to escape the implications of the Bill. We are told that
global processing and communications operations that used to be based in the UK (including petro-chemicals, pharmaceuticals etc as well as the City)
appear not to be waiting around to find out whether there is a benign interpretation of the Bill by the courts, but to be moving offshore now. That must be a cause for concern.
One of the problems concerns the validity of those who are authorised to issue a warrant and how that validity is checked. All those matters were raised in Committee and I know that the Government are doing their very best to meet our concerns, but they have not yet gone far enough. Big issues are at stake, and I underline what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire said.

Mr. David Maclean: There is a straightforward point to be made here: clause 49 as drafted is unjust and wrong. An innocent person unconnected with paedophilia, terrorism, drug dealing or crime of any kind, simply because information is required of him—he may have been sent an e-mail encrypted by mistake—and because, with the best will in the world, he cannot provide the encryption key, can be liable to a prison sentence of two years. He may have had no intention to commit a crime, but he can go to prison for two years. That is unjust and fundamentally wrong.
The clause is wrong for another reason. Serious criminals such as paedophiles, drug dealers and terrorists—those whom the security services, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, Customs and Excise and others should be, and are, pursuing ruthlessly—can simply refuse to hand over the key to encrypted material, because it is by far the best option for them to be found guilty of an offence under clause 49, which attracts a maximum sentence of two years, which becomes even less with good behaviour. They will know that handing over the key and allowing the authorities to see the paedophile material or information on terrorist activity or drug dealing would land them with a much heavier sentence and put them in prison for perhaps 10 years.
It is almost as iniquitous that serious criminals will get only a two-year sentence as it is that an innocent person who has forgotten the key should get the same sentence.
That is why I support new clause I. It may not be perfect—neither is a lot of the Government's legislation, as every parliamentary draftsman in the northern hemisphere is being roped in to draft it—but its intention is correct. It restores the fundamental safeguard that there must be mens rea. That is how I read the suggested provision embodied in the words
with intent to impede access to information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form …
It is vital to include the intention of the person in the Bill, because it will remove the injustice that exists in clause 49. If the Government are willing to accept new clause 1 in principle—I hope that they are and that they will go away and redraft the provision before the Bill reaches the other place—they will make a double improvement to the Bill. They will remove the injustice of innocent people facing a two-year sentence because they cannot provide the key or the information when requested.
6.30 pm
My dementia is no more advanced than that of many other hon. Members, but I have several passwords by now. I must have about 20 hotmail accounts, not for any security reasons, but because I cannot remember the supposedly infallible password for the account I created last weekend. I always pick a password that I am bound to remember, but I always forget it. When I was on the parliamentary system, I was always having to call the Communications Directorate—I see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding—to admit that I could not remember my password and could not get into the system. The directorate tells me that about 90 per cent. of the calls to its hotline are from Members of Parliament or their secretaries and staff who cannot remember their password. That may be a lighthearted point, but what would happen if we had encrypted material?
What will happen to all those innocent business men and women who have encrypted material with an encryption key involving letters and figures, but who cannot remember it? They might have lost the bit of paper the key is written on, or mixed it up with a pin number from the bank, or any of the other bits and pieces of information about which we are told, "Keep it safely, memorise it, don't forget it." We try to have a system, but I often have to call my wife, because she remembers my pin number. We have to keep all sorts of information securely and, inevitably, as human beings, we fail. We forget or lose things.
When we forget or lose information, we should suffer the penalty of inconvenience, such as the hassle of calling the bank to request a new card or dealing with the computer companies. We should suffer the embarrassment of admitting to the police that we cannot find a document, and have to turn our houses upside down to try to find it. However, someone should not go to prison for two years because they have been forgetful. If the Government accept new clause 1, on the other hand, the paedophiles, the drug dealers and the terrorists should go to prison for 10 years if they deliberately try to keep their encrypted information from the security services. That would be the effect of new clause 1, and I urge the Government to accept it.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has put the argument most pithily. The concerns and fears aroused by clause 49 are that an innocent man may be found guilty. One reluctantly acknowledges that the questions of mens rea and the burden of proof are no longer defended in the House by the majority parties. I have great difficulties with the view of this country adopted by the Home Office and those who drafted the clause.
I accept the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that our liberties are now more consistently defended in the other place. In saying that, I request the other place to examine the Bill rigorously. It has features that are unacceptable to our sense of freedom, liberty and the due processes that we have held to be important for many years.
I give an especial cheer for amendment No. 18, which contains the simple words "leave out Clause 49". That concentrates the mind better than any other amendment. Clause 49 is dreadful as drafted and would not be much improved by any of the amendments. The Home Office should reflect on that before the Bill reaches the House of Lords.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Before I respond to the detailed points made in debate, I offer the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) a little suggestion to help him with his passwords. If he needs eight-letter passwords, he could rotate three—remember, Tory-Gvmt and dementia. They would remind him of the history of much of what we are considering.
With your agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall first explain the reasons for the Government amendments in this group. The effect of Government amendment No. 39 is to make further stipulations about the form that a decryption notice is to take. In Committee, hon. Members tabled a number of amendments relating to the form of a decryption notice and I undertook to look at whether the requirements set down in clause 47(4) could look more like those for demands for communications data in clause 22(2).
Government amendment No. 39 is the result and I think that it will be welcomed. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for doing so. I know that industry has made representations on it. As I said in Committee, there is clearly a need for consistency regarding notices—for the sake of the authorities authorising and serving the notices and for the sake of those receiving them, whether individuals or businesses.
Industry was worried about the possibility of receiving "spoof' notices. Companies will also want to know what it is that they are being asked to provide and by what time. Government amendment No. 39 addresses those points. There clearly needs to be an audit trail for queries. I hope that business will be reassured by that.
There should be an agreed format to notices. How this looks in practice is properly the subject of consultation with industry and others, because we want to get it right to achieve clarity and best practice. That work will be taken forward in the public consultation on the code of practice for part III.
Government amendment No. 67 inserts an extra test in clause 47 to specify that a requirement to disclose a key may be imposed only when it is believed that special

circumstances make that necessary. In Committee, I undertook to consider whether there was room for narrowing down the circumstances when a key might be required to be disclosed rather than the authorities simply accepting the plain text of protected material.
I know that many, especially in industry, have no difficulty with the principle of handing over intelligible data when required to do under some lawful authority. However, I recognise that there are concerns about handing over keys, despite the tests and safeguards already in the Bill. The amendment is designed to respond to that concern.
I have previously said that the Government expect that the disclosure of plain text, rather than a key, is likely to be sufficient in most cases in responding to the service of a decryption notice. That is especially true where legitimate businesses are concerned. However, we have listened to industry's concerns and have tabled this limiting amendment, which introduces an extra test to clause 47. We already have a proportionality test, so the logical addition is a necessary one.
The amendment ensures that imposing a requirement to disclose a key may be made only where there are special circumstances to the case making that necessary. We have given that careful thought and, in the case of decryption requests made to legitimate businesses, a requirement to disclose a key where the plain text is available would certainly be most unusual. The difficulty for the law enforcement agencies surrounds the use of the power against suspects. In those cases where trust may be an issue—for example, guaranteeing that any plain text disclosed is the right plain text—requests for keys may perhaps be more frequent. The future is uncertain and we cannot know how often that might be, but the amendment limits the power to demand a key to special cases.
As we have said, the Government are, in many ways, trying to deal with a future danger here. The consensus view is that the rising criminal use of encryption poses a significant threat, for many of the reasons already mentioned in the debate. However, neither the law enforcement agencies, nor industry itself, can predict just how the technology will spread—and nor can the Government. We are striving to maintain a balance with the legislation now. This amendment is a reflection of that balancing exercise. In response to suggestions made in Committee by hon. Members of all parties, I have volunteered these changes because we are genuinely seeking to strike the right balance between providing effective powers and allaying the reservations about the Bill felt in industry and among groups concerned with civil liberties.
Our intention is to set out in the code of practice what circumstances would be considered special—a point raised specifically by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). A draft of the code will be published for public consultation, but the relevant circumstances may be determined along the lines that we have previously set out—for example, where issues involving trust or time limits mean that keys might be required in a special case. We think that those issues of trust and timeliness are central to the implementation of the "special" need.
I hope and believe that industry will welcome the amendment, and I am glad that it has been generally supported in the debates so far.

Mr. Simon Hughes: When will the draft code of practice be published? Did the Minister specifically reject the "reasonable belief' test for the exceptional occasion when the key itself—rather than the other copy—would be sought? When he was considering the issues raised by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and by us, did he apply his mind to when the power adopted by the Government might be used? Is that in the code of practice, or will it be set out somewhere else?

Mr. Clarke: We intend that the code of practice will cover the power that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and we have given the commitment that the draft code will be published while the Bill is going through the House.
In Committee, I said that I would explore the use of the word "exceptional" rather than "special". We have taken advice on the matter, and have decided that the word "special" should be used in the Bill, as we consider that it gives more legal flexibility than would the word "exceptional". However, we consider that the definitions of what will be covered by the word "special" will meet any concerns that the issue was not being dealt with effectively.
Government amendments Nos. 89 and 90 would exempt part III from the effect of corporate liability. In Committee, I undertook to consider whether part III could be exempted from the provision concerning directors' liability for corporate default. I know that industry has voiced concerns about the matter, and consequently we have agreed to make the changes that amendments Nos. 89 and 90 put into effect. I believe that those changes will be welcomed.
I turn now to the matters raised in the debate by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. There is an inconsistency in the Conservative argument. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) made an eloquent speech, in which he spoke about the changes being made to the burden of proof and the length of the sentence. However, the Conservatives' inconsistency was evident when they accused the Government of being both too tough and not tough enough.

Mr. Heald: Does the Minister agree that, when an offence is repugnant to justice, any sentence would be wrong? However, if an offence is fair and a trial is fair, does he agree that its seriousness should be reflected in the sentence, especially when it relates to money launderers, drug traffickers and paedophiles?

Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that the offence is "repugnant to justice", to quote the hon. Gentleman, as I shall explain later.
I resisted these amendments in Committee, where we discussed this issue at some length. I remain unconvinced that changes are necessary. The central accusation—the core point being used to justify the amendments—is that the construction of the offence of failing to comply with a decryption notice in clause 49 means that innocent people will suffer. We do not agree. The issue has

generated more heat than light among critics of the Bill, but I accept that the issue is important, so I will state the Government's position clearly.
6.45 pm
The first point to make and to emphasise is that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that a person served with a decryption notice has a key before use of the power can be authorised in the first place. That is an important barrier and burden, and I assure the House that the Government take it seriously.
Importantly—it is worth stressing this point again—part III does not allow the authorities to obtain material that they cannot obtain now. New types of material are not being drawn in by the Bill: it is a question of ensuring that authorities can obtain the material that they are already entitled to obtain.
The new decryption power works only where material is lawfully obtained. In other words, material must be obtained lawfully before the decryption power can come into effect. Only if that material is encrypted, and someone who is in a position to decrypt it refuses to do so, does the question of a prosecution arise.
Two hurdles must be negotiated before a prosecution is justified—there must be reasonable grounds, and the material has to have been lawfully obtained. I also stress that, where prosecutions occur, it is for the authorities to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused has, or has had, a key. That is a significant burden of proof, and it is laid on the prosecution, not the defence. It is therefore the third serious burden of proof that the prosecution in such cases must meet.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) chided me for using of the phrase "statutory defences". He was right to say that a similar question was debated in connection with the Terrorism Bill—in Committee, on Second Reading and on Report. There are statutory defences for people who have destroyed, lost or forgotten keys. Those defences need to be proved only on the lower level of proof—that is, the balance of probabilities.
Many criminal offences on the statute book place some burden on the accused. We have heard much talk about reversed burdens of proof, but the real issue is whether an accused can show, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she no longer has access to the key. How can the accused do that? The answer is straightforward, and applies in any court of law or legal circumstance. The accused must explain what has happened and the court will decide whether, on balance, he or she is telling the truth.
I believe that such circumstances will arise very rarely. I accept that that assertion is open to challenge, so I shall set out the reasons for my belief. I shall begin with looking at the position of industry in this matter. Were a business ever to find itself in a position of having to show, on the balance of probabilities, that it did not have a key at the relevant time, I fully expect that it could produce any number of technical records to explain the circumstances under which it normally used, stored and disposed of keys.
That is what businesses do. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border described the system to deal with lost keys that obtains in the House, and it is the norm for


businesses and organisations such as public authorities to have such a system. Responsible and secure businesses are likely to have back-up mechanisms. They will anticipate the loss of a key, and will have an audit trail that shows when keys are used for what purposes, and when they are destroyed.
We know that keys are valuable to business. Businesses have impressed that upon us, but keys are also valuable to anyone who uses systems such as those under consideration. It is therefore reasonable to expect that businesses will be in a good position if—for legitimate businesses not suspected of involvement in criminality it is a big if—they find themselves facing a prosecution. Because the requirements are straightforward and set out clearly in the Bill, the number of times that any problem will arise for businesses in this regard will be minimal; indeed, I consider that it may never happen at all.
For individuals, forgetting a password is a reasonable thing to do. People in my private office at the Home Office, and others with whom I have worked, accept that it is not unknown for me to forget a password occasionally. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border admitted that he, too, was often guilty of forgetting his passwords.
It is rare for no contingency arrangements to be in place for such an eventuality. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border described the arrangements—involving direct contact with parliamentary officers, his reliance on his wife and so on—that he has in place. Depending on the circumstances of the case, people might relatively easily state that they have forgotten their password or their key, and then volunteer how it was generated, when they last used it and what they normally do when they forget their key. They could also say whether their service provider, for example, provided a back-up system, or whether every time they lost their key all data was destroyed or lost. There are no impossible burdens here—the processes are very clear.
I stress that clause 49(2) excuses someone from liability if he or she no longer has possession of the key and has done what he or she can to enable the key to be recovered by the person requiring it. That does not mean that the defence will fail if the key cannot be recovered—that would be an impossible burden. It simply means that the accused must assist by giving as much information as he or she has available. If they do, they have nothing to fear from prosecution. I emphasise that point, because I believe that it has not been made sufficiently clearly to date.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The argument is perfectly reasonable, but the most vulnerable people will be individuals who are not part of a system with a back-up procedure. They are their only check—they invent the password, and they can forget it. Given that the test is only 50/50 in that it is a case of whether the person is believed or not, would it not be better at least to concede that someone must be found, not just on a balance of probabilities, but beyond any reasonable doubt, to be hiding the fact that they know the password, data or encryption mechanism?

Mr. Clarke: I have tried as best I can to deal with the points that have been made fully. The balance suggested by the hon. Gentleman is not right; that which we are suggesting is right, which is why the Bill is worded as it is.
On sentencing, I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran). I pay tribute here in the Chamber, as I did in Committee, to the work done on this issue by the children's charities, which addresses serious and important points. As my hon. Friend said, complex issues of civil liberties are concerned, and there is no doubt that the overriding concern must be the seriousness of the offence. Increasing the penalty to 10 years would put the offence on a par with, for example, cruelty to children. I am not sure whether that is right.
The Bill has been accused of amounting to key escrow by intimidation, a point to which the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) referred. We have been keen not to go down that road. There is a difficult balance to be established between the two questions, and we have decided that the balance proposed in the Bill is the right one. However, I can tell my Friend the Member for Luton, South that we will look carefully at how the Bill evolves and whether the situation that she describes becomes a reality. If her fears are proved right, we will look again at the appropriate level of sentencing in this area.
The Government do not take lightly the questions that have been raised in the debate—we take them very seriously. It is a hard balance to decide, but we think that the balance in the Bill is right. I commend the Government amendments to right hon. and hon. Members and hope that they will reject the Opposition amendments.

Mr. Heald: We are simply not satisfied, and we have not been throughout. Barristers have described the offence as repugnant; they have referred to cases in which judges have considered similar provisions and described them in the most damning terms. It is wrong that we should create offences that offend against the golden threat of justice, as it has been described, by saying, "Oh well, the sentence is only two years." It does not matter what the sentence is if the offence is unjust. If the offence is just, the serious crime of failing to give information to the prosecution authorities that might reveal money laundering, drug trafficking or paedophilia should be marked.
We want a just offence to be created, which does not require an innocent man to prove his innocence but puts the burden of proof fair and square on the prosecution. If he is found guilty, the event should be marked with due seriousness. We intend to divide the House on new clause 1, which we believe meets the justice of the case.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 317.

Division No. 180]
[6.54 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Brazier, Julian


Amess, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Browning, Mrs Angela


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Butterfill, John


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Bercow, John


Beresford, Sir Paul


Blunt, Crispin
Clappison, James


Boswell, Tim
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Brady, Graham
Collins, Tim





Cormack, Sir Patrick
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cran, James
May, Mrs Theresa


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Moss, Malcolm


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Nicholls, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Norman, Archie


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Ottaway, Richard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Paice, James


Faber, David
Paterson, Owen


Fabricant, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Fallon, Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Flight, Howard
Prior, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam
Robathan, Andrew


Fraser, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence


Garnier, Edward
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gibb, Nick
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gill, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gray, James
St Aubyn, Nick


Green, Damian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard


Hague, Rt Hon William
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hammond, Philip
Soames, Nicholas


Hawkins, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heald, Oliver
Spring, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Steen, Anthony


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Streeter, Gary


Hunter, Andrew
Swayne, Desmond


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Syms, Robert


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)



Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Key, Robert
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Townend, John


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Trend, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tyrie, Andrew


Lansley, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Letwin, Oliver
Wells, Bowen


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lidington, David
Whittingdale, John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Wilkinson, John


Luff, Peter
Willetts, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wilshire, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


McLoughlin, Patrick


Madel, Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Malins, Humfrey
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Maples, John
and


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. John Randall.



NOES


Ainger, Nick
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Allen, Graham
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bennett, Andrew F


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Benton, Joe


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Berry, Roger


Ashton, Joe
Best, Harold


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atkins, Charlotte
Blizzard, Bob


Austin, John
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Barnes, Harry
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Battle, John
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Bayley, Hugh
Bradshaw, Ben


Beard, Nigel
Brand, Dr Peter


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Breed, Colin



Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foulkes, George


Browne, Desmond
Fyfe, Maria


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gapes, Mike


Buck, Ms Karen
Gardiner, Barry


Burden, Richard
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burgon, Colin
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Burstow, Paul
Gibson, Dr Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cable, Dr Vincent
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Golding, Mrs Llin



Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gorrie, Donald


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clwyd, Ann
Healey, John


Coaker, Vernon
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coleman, Iain
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hill, Keith


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David


Corston, Jean
Hood, Jimmy


Cotter, Brian
Hope, Phil


Crausby, David
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cummings, John
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Humble, Mrs Joan



Hurst, Alan


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hutton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Illsley, Eric


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jamieson, David


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jenkins, Brian


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)



Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Denham, John
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dismore, Andrew


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Doran, Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Drew, David
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kemp, Fraser


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Khabra, Piara S


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ennis, Jeff
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Etherington, Bill
Kirkwood, Archy


Fearn, Ronnie
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fisher, Mark
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Flynn, Paul
Lepper, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Don (Bath)
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)





Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Linton, Martin
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooney, Terry


Lock, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Roy, Frank


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruddock, Joan


McDonnell, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ryan, Ms Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Salter, Martin


McNamara, Kevin
Sanders, Adrian


McNulty, Tony
Sarwar, Mohammad


MacShane, Denis
Sawford, Phil


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sedgemore, Brian


McWalter, Tony
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Singh, Marsha


Mallaber, Judy
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Ms Rachel


Maxton, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Stevenson, George


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Miller, Andrew
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mitchell, Austin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moffatt, Laura
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stunell, Andrew


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)



Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mountford, Kali
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mudie, George
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mullin, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Tipping, Paddy



Todd, Mark


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Norris, Dan
Trickett, Jon


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Truswell, Paul


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Öpik, Lembit
Turner, Dr (Kemptown)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pearson, Ian
Tynan, Bill


Perham, Ms Linda
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pickthall, Colin
Watts, David


Pike, Peter L
Webb, Steve


Plaskitt, James
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pollard, Kerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Pond, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Primarolo, Dawn
Winnick, David


Prosser, Gwyn
Wood, Mike


Purchase, Ken
Woolas, Phil


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Worthington, Tony


Quinn, Lawrie
Wray, James


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Rammell, Bill
Wyatt, Derek


Rapson, Syd


Raynsford, Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Mr. Don Touhig and


Rendel, David
Mr. Greg Pope.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

TECHNICAL APPROVAL BOARD

'.—The Secretary of State shall appoint to a Technical Approval Board—

(a) six representatives of persons appearing to him to be likely to be subject to technical obligations under this Act; and
(b) such persons with statutory functions in relation to persons falling within paragraph (a).'.—[Mr. Heald.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Heald: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4—Report of payments made—
'.—The Secretary of State shall report annually to Parliament setting out the payments made under section 13 in respect of each person to whom such payment is made, and where payments are not made, the reasons therefor.'.
New clause 6—Appeal against payment decisions—
'.—(1) A person to whom a payment is made under section 13, or a person who is refused payment thereunder, may within seven days of notice of the decision appeal to the Court as to the amount of such payment or the said refusal.
(2) The Court to which an appeal may be made under this section shall be—

(a) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the High Court and
(b) in Scotland, the Court of Session.'.
Amendment No. 7, in clause 12, page 14, line 7, after "order" insert—
', a draft of which has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House,'.
Amendment No. 8, in page 14, line 41, at end insert—
'(6A) Before giving a notice for the purposes of subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall obtain a certificate of technical approval from the Technical Approval Board.'.
Amendment No. 19, in page 14, line 41, at end insert—
'( ) A person on whom a notice under subsection (2) is served may apply to the Technical Approval Board for a review.
( ) A review may be sought on any of the following grounds—

(a) that such steps as may be specified or described in the notice are not technically competent for the purpose set out in subsection (1);
(b) that such steps are not proportionate to the purpose set out in subsection (1); or
(c) that such steps exceed what is necessary to achieve the purpose set out in subsection (1).
( ) On a review application under this section, the Technical Approval Board may either cancel or affirm the notice, and, if it affirms it, may do so either in its original form or with such modifications as the Board may in the circumstances think fit.'.
Government amendment No. 24.
Amendment No. 9, in page 15, line 11, at end add—
'(9) In this section "a certificate of technical approval" means a certificate in writing given by the Technical Approval Board to the effect that the steps specified or described in the notice would be—

(a) technically competent for the purpose set out in subsection (1); and
(b) proportionate thereto.'.


Amendment No. 13, in clause 13, page 15, line 12, leave out—

'may, if he thinks fit,'
and insert "shall".
Government amendment No. 25.
Amendment No. 10, in clause 21, page 24, line 16, at end insert—
(4A) Where is appears to the designated person that a postal or telecommunications operator is not or may not be in possession of, but is or may be capable of obtaining any communications data, the designated person shall not give a notice under subsection (4) unless he has obtained a certificate of technical capability from the Technical Approval Board.'.
Amendment No. 11, in page 24, line 16, at end insert—
(4B) In this section "a certificate of technical capability" means a certificate in writing given by the Technical Approval Board to the effect that the postal or telecommunications operator—

(a) is technically capable of obtaining the communications data, or
(b) could be technically capable of obtaining the communications data if certain steps were taken, and the certificate—

(i) specifies or describes such steps; and
(ii) certifies that the taking of such steps would be proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by so obtaining the data.'.
Government amendment No. 28.
Amendment No. 17, in clause 71, page 77, line 21, at end insert—
'technical obligations under this Act" means steps to be specified or described in a notice pursuant to section 12(2) and steps needed to be taken pursuant to section 21(4) in order to be capable of obtaining any communications data.'.

Mr. Heald: New clause 2 would set up a technical approval board made up of six representatives of industry and the regulator to vet technical requirements to be imposed by the Secretary of State on public telecommunications and postal services providers under clauses 12 and 21.
We all accept the principle that there should be an intercept capability for the internet. As we made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, however, there is widespread concern at the unknown extent and cost of providing that capability as well as concern about communications data. When the Government consulted on these issues last summer, it became clear that there is uncertainty about whether it is technical practicable to provide such an intercept capability. The costs also remained uncertain.
It is surprising that it was not until January that the Government troubled to employ expert consultants to report on the technical issues. However, the Smith Group of Guildford has done its work and its report has been published recently, for which I thank the Minister, even if I have to say that it is better late than never. The industry is considering the detail at the moment, and it is difficult to know exactly what the full response will be. Early indications are worrying. The Federation of the Electronics Industry tells me that, even at this early stage, some people believe that the measure will lead to bulk interception. The operators' group has not previously commented on the clauses; however, it now states:
Despite assurances given to the Standing Committee, the remarks of Jane Kennedy MP, the Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Bill as at present worded gives the

Government powers to require interception of data and other communications which will mean the commitment by communications service providers of a high level of expenditure on hardware, software and personnel. These costs will fall proportionately more heavily on smaller communications operators than on larger ones, and are therefore likely to be anti-competitive, and inimical to new entry.
The assurances given so far are not comforting…Thus, the costs remain unspecific, and Government appears to arrogate to itself the right to decide to what extent the cost of these new regulatory burdens carried out for Government's benefit, would fall upon our industry.
There is no negotiating machinery by which the industry could agree the definition of a reasonable intercept capacity, and there is not even a commitment to negotiate over costs.
In effect, the group is saying that the broad scope of powers exercised purely at Ministers' discretion, coupled with a highly optimistic compliance cost assessment, is unsatisfactory.
As we have pointed out, British Telecom noted that the mechanism for deciding what is a reasonable intercept capability will be a key factor in ensuring the successful implementation of the Bill and in avoiding putting the UK at a commercial disadvantage with the rest of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) mentioned Mr. Philip Virgo. Mr. Virgo is involved with EURIM—the European Informatics Market—but is commenting on his own behalf. He said:
The main concern (of City institutions) is over the uncertainty as to who will have what rights of access to their data and communications and the risk of criminal access under guise of a warrant.
He noted that many institutions are already "tiptoeing offshore". That point was also made by my hon. Friend.
The Smith Group's report raises as many questions as it answers—as does previous information supplied by the Government. The group has decided that one solution cannot be applied to all internet service providers and it has come up with a menu. There is the low-cost option of active interception, whereby e-mails for a selected subscriber would be provided. The next option is semi-active interception, whereby control data would be passed to interception equipment each time an address was assigned to a selected subscriber. The subscriber traffic would be routed past an intercept point in order to obtain that. The most expensive option is passive interception, whereby all selected subscriber traffic would be forced to flow past interception points and there would be a selection of traffic.
The report makes several points that are of concern. It states that the semi-active approach might be over-burdensome for small internet service providers and that the passive approach is more expensive to implement for the ISP and the Government in medium-sized ISPs and is therefore not recommended in such cases.
The spectre is that a bespoke notice will have to be served on each ISP, with the technical requirements to be imposed on the particular ISP. That raises huge issues. One of the industry's concerns throughout the process has been that the provision should not discriminate between ISPs. Under the Government proposal that seems to be emerging—we have never actually heard it, but I hope that we shall do so tonight—a medium-sized ISP could be told that it had to provide only an active approach. That would be the cheap method. At the same time, another slightly larger ISP, which, although described as


"big", was in competition with the medium-sized one, could be required to implement the expensive, passive approach with huge start-up costs.
7.15 pm
Will the Minister confirm that IPSs—almost above all else—do not want the provision to be discriminatory? It should not create competitive advantages for one ISP over another. Will he confirm that active interception—as identified by the Smith Group—is a limited and cheap option? Would he be prepared to limit his ambitions to that? Will he confirm that the Smith Group has recommended that the Government should meet initial investment costs? Does he agree with that? Does the Minister agree with the cost estimate of the Foundation for Information Policy Research that ISPs will be required to pay more than £30 million?
In Committee, the Minister said that ISPs would not support the idea of a technical approval board. I replied that I would consult on that point. The advantage of such a board is that it would be an independent body that understood the issues. I do not know whether the Minister claims to understand that fully. He nods—he does understand. I admit that there comes a point when the technical difficulty is beyond me. Does the Minister agree that the advantage of a technical approval board is that it would be independent? It would consider the Minister's proposal for companies and would be able to decide whether the proposal was technically sensible; whether it was proportionate to the purpose and—in the case of a small ISP—whether it would put the ISP out of business. The board would provide an element of independent scrutiny. After all, the Government are not expert in technical matters, as every computer project over the past 10 years has shown—there has not been a successful Government computer project for a long time.
Governments are not technically proficient in such matters. An independent body could at least offer companies a review from technical experts. I said that I would consult on that matter. The Minister said that the Government would not welcome a scheme that allowed a quango to give technically sensitive information to competitors and that it would not be right to share such information. However, in a letter, he had previously told me that the only way that the Government could reduce costs would be by sharing expertise across the community.
The Minister might be interested to learn that the Federation of the Electronics Industry stated that
we believe that it is important that industry have the powers envisaged under your proposal for a technical approval board…I cannot agree with the Minister's statements…I thought you easily won the argument on technical approval board.
The London Internet Exchange stated:
We have always expected some kind of approval board…There is no feeling that confidentiality would be a problem.
Numerous other bodies have told us that no one is against the measure. Will the Minister reconsider the matter? He has thought again about many of the issues. What is wrong with appointing an independent body to consider the matter? He will have to appoint technical experts. If his statements in Committee are correct, he will have to consult on the measure. Why not do so in the way that the industry wants? Why dig in?
New clause 4 would also build confidence. It would require the Secretary of State to
report annually to Parliament setting out the payments made under section 13 in respect of each person to whom such payment is made, and where payments are not made, the reasons therefor.
New clause 6 would give a right of appeal. That would ensure a level playing field between ISPs, so that if one seemed to be favoured over another for compensation, there would be some redress.
It is welcome that the Government are responding to amendment No. 7, which provides that the generic requirements—the general terms to be applied to ISPs—would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We are pleased that they have conceded that point in Government amendments Nos. 24 and 28.
The issue is not only about whether the Government's proposal is technically feasible—the Smith report expressed concern about whether it would be feasible to apply it to all ISPs and suggested that it would not be—but about the question of money. We are pleased that the Government have listened to the suggestions that were made in Committee. They are now prepared to respond to our amendment No. 13—Government amendment No. 25 acknowledges our point—which requires that they "shall" make a fair contribution to the industry. Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 are consequential on the acceptance of the idea of a technical approval board.
The industry is obviously worried that the Government's proposal might be burdensome, especially as circumstances change with new technologies coming on stream. The Government's requirements today might not be their requirements in the future. There is evidence that companies are already responding to the proposal by moving, or by considering moving, offshore. We have built a marvellous new industry in information technology that does this country proud and it provides a future for young people in a new economy, as the Prime Minister would describe it. Therefore, it would be a tragedy to turn our back on that by being stubborn about something as sensible and well supported as a technical approval board.
I hope that the Minister will take our suggestion more seriously than he did in Committee, where he described it as an expensive quango. He will have to do the work anyway. No extra cost will be involved—a point that the London Internet Exchange makes in its correspondence with me. A board would be nothing new; everyone expected one. Therefore, the industry says, "Come on Minister. Let us see a little more reasonableness and the colour of your money."

Mr. Simon Hughes: Again, there is broad consensus among Opposition Members. It only remains for the Minister to sign up and we will be all aboard together. The industry and the people who made representations to us will be happy. The House will be happy, we will be able to move on to the next group of amendments and the Minister will be able to chalk up another success.
As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, the Government have already made two welcome concessions in this group of amendments. Government amendment No. 24 clearly accepts the principle of amendment No. 7, which was tabled by Conservative Members but which Liberal Democrats support. Government amendment No. 25 responds to points made in Committee, particularly by my hon. Friend


the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), and it sensibly uses the wording in clauses 23 and 48 on the reimbursement of costs and seeks to apply it to clause 13.
All the new clauses and amendments in the group that were tabled by Conservative Members are eminently sensible given the provisions in clauses 12 and 13. Clause 12 is the substantive clause, under which the Secretary of State can order those who provide postal services or public telecommunications services, or who propose to do so, to comply with interception warrants, and we anticipate that clause 13 will provide grants to meet the costs of that. It is sensible that the additional costs should be paid for as part of the system of getting our commercial sector into a position in which it can comply with the law. It wants to do that, and there has been a positive response to the suggestions made.
We support the practical proposals in new clauses 2, 4 and 6 and in amendments Nos. 7, 8, 19, 9, 13, 10 and 11. There was considerable debate in Committee on how we would meet the concerns of industry. It is sensible to create a body such as a technical approval board, so that discussions can take place and agreement can be reached with industry. In Committee, the Minister suggested that the Government would try to reach agreement with the private sector and that they intended to proceed by consensus. That approach would be better secured by making it clear in the Bill.
There needs to be an appeals system and we are grateful for the fact that the Government appear to have conceded the point that orders must be laid before both Houses and approved after a debate on them. That will give us the opportunity to ensure that the Government get it right, which is always an additional incentive. The proposals for a certificate of technical approval and for a review are sensible, as is the definition proposed.
I welcome Government amendment No. 25 because it will ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to consider what payment is appropriate. The defect is that clause 13 contains a "may" and not a "shall" provision, and amendment No. 13 would cover that point.
Two issues relate to compliance. The first is how those in the telecommunications world comply with the provisions and the second is the need to ensure that they have the technical ability to do so. It is no good to produce a scheme that is not technically feasible, so I hope that the Government will be positive about the principles in the amendments and new clauses, which have our broad support, even if they quibble with their wording.
Liberal Democrats did not lead on this issue in Committee and we are happy that Conservative Members continue to lead on it. However, we broadly accept their arguments and people outside the House have been very positive about them.

Mr. David Ruffley: Clause 12 is inadequate without the benefit of the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It will provide no proper means for service providers to affect or to challenge notices served on them under the Bill. If the clause is accepted unamended, the United Kingdom industry will be subject to a regime unlike that imposed in any other developed industrialised economy.
I shall address my remarks to new clauses 2 and 4. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) pointed out, the industry

believes that investors in this country will be deterred by the obligations set out in clause 12. In particular, potential investors will face technical implementation costs that are unquantified and unquantifiable. The industry's view is that those costs will constrain technical solutions and the development of technology, and that uncertainties will directly discourage investment in this country.
The Government have a way out. They can agree to the amendments and to new clause 2, which is key because it would set up a technical approval board. One does not have to look far to see the reasons for the new clause. We should all accept—as the Minister did in Committee, I believe—that technology, especially internet technology, is moving rapidly. There is no analogy between intercept regimes for fixed-line and circuit-switched operating technology, like telephony, and the new world of the internet in which service providers must operate.
It is vital that the technical requirements that authorities impose on service providers under the clause are reasonable. We contend that technical requirements will be reasonable and proportionate only if the industry provides genuine technical input to determine what the reasonable requirements of service providers are in relation to the capabilities defined in clause 12.
7.30 pm
With the greatest respect, the Government have not been awfully good on the quantification of costs, which is the subject of new clause 4. They have not shed much light on the real cost to small, medium-sized and large companies in this sector. The technical advisory board that would be set up if new clause 2 were accepted would give the industry and the Government much-needed information and a proper quantification of the costs to UK industry. That would enable Ministers to decide what is a reasonable technical requirement under the clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire has rehearsed the arguments on that, so I will not develop them. I had the privilege of serving on the Committee considering the Bill, and I merely wish to register concern on behalf of the many operators who have contacted me and who have reiterated such anxieties since the Committee proceedings. I urge the Minister, who was diligent in Committee, and is also reasonable and exceedingly courteous, to give us further explanation, if possible, as to why the Government find a technical advisory board so objectionable—or, indeed, to say why it is otiose, irrelevant, unnecessary or redundant. Whatever words he chooses, will he explain why the board is, if not objectionable, unnecessary? if it is, why do so many operators take the contrary view and support our amendment?
I shall quickly rehearse an explanation of the regime that a technical approval board would put in place. There would be six representatives from the industry, who would be likely to be subject to the technical obligations under this clause; there would also be; as new clause 2 states,
such persons with statutory functions,
which, typically, means the regulator.
New clause 2 should be accepted because it would result in the Secretary of State having his or her feet held to the fire in relation to determining what is reasonable under clause 12(1). The Minister intended to satisfy us


with an assurance that he would consult. However, the consultation requirement of which he spoke in Committee is not in the Bill; it does not appear in clause 12 or anywhere else in relation to the obligations under that clause. That is not good enough.
The new technologies coming on line will result in Ministers imposing obligations, but, as has been said, without the benefit of our amendment, there is no proper guarantee that those obligations will be technically competent or proportionate. Let me pre-empt the Minister by suggesting that he will say that the technical approval board would be another quango, and will then ask how much it would cost. We have already heard the answer to that: it should cost nothing, and indeed, might save the Government money.
In the fast-moving world of the future, the Secretary of State or his successor will have to ask his civil servants for detailed technical advice before deciding what a reasonable obligation is and whether to impose it. With the greatest respect to civil servants in Whitehall, the technical advice that they are able to give the Secretary of State will not be as good as the advice that players in the industry can give him. People who are running businesses that require them to be on top of the subject, day in, day out, have technical ability and expertise that must be far in advance of what civil servants have at their command. No matter how technically brilliant such civil servants may be, they will never be as good as the players in the industry running businesses, who know the subject inside out.
Such individuals would be on our board, and would give advice to the Secretary of State at a minimal cost—lower than the costs that he would incur by having civil servants trained up to give technical advice of comparable quality. We made that point in Committee, but the Minister did not, I fear, give an adequate response to it. I trust that he will give a slightly better answer in this debate, and that it will involve his acceding to new clause 2.
I turn now to costs—the subject of new clause 4, which would oblige the Government to produce an annual report for Parliament, detailing grants made to compensate operators who have had to comply with the technical capability requirements in clause 12. That involves a big problem, to which the Government are alive, as they talk at great length about the need to cut regulatory and cost burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises in this country. There are units in the Cabinet Office that seem to do little else but talk about that important subject. In this debate, the Minister has an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is and deliver a Bill that reduces—or at least does not increase—the costs and regulatory burden on small businesses in the sector that it covers.
As has been hinted, and as was discussed at great length in Committee, the costs imposed by clause 12—which are the subject of a compensatory grants system in clause 13, to which new clause 4 relates—are not one-off costs. Continuing costs will be imposed on the providers who are under such obligations, relating to the cost of software, hardware, extra staff and their training, the time that must be spent talking to law enforcement agencies, month after

month, year after year, not to mention the legal advice that such companies must seek to ensure that they are complying with the legislation.
Clause 13 is a permissive measure, allowing the Secretary of State to make contributions in the form of grants for costs incurred by providers, but not requiring him to make such grants. Other amendments in this group deal with that concern.
I shall finish by raising a serious concern about the basis on which the Minister has argued that we should not bother too much about those costs, contending that clause 13 is adequate to cover them. I believe that the Government think that those costs are marginal. Their consultation document certainly seemed to state that the costs were marginal. In Committee, the Minister provided an estimate of £20 million for the additional costs imposed on the industry as a result of clause 12, but I fear that that was only a wild stab in the dark. The changes that providers will have to implement will not be a one-off; changes may be required five or six times during the next decade, as technology moves on. More than one set of intercept capabilities might have to be introduced—for all we know, one a year, or even one a month, could be required. The costs could be massive, and £20 million is not a realistic estimate, given the fast-changing nature and rapid pace of technological innovation in the industry.
The London Internet Exchange has underlined that point, arguing that
Due to the inherently short lifecycle of internet—
specifically, internet—
infrastructure equipment, and the need to replace and enhance networks due to traffic growth, it is misleading
to think that any changes and upgrades will be one-off actions, given that networks are
constantly evolving and expanding and the need for additional engineering work to support the capability for interception will be ever present.
Therefore, £20 million cannot be an adequate quantification of the costs in years to come.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. Even if he does not resile from the £20 million figure, I hope that he will at least acknowledge that it cannot be a proper final estimate of the costs to which the industry will be subject. We require some assurance that the compensation system will be not subject to the Secretary of State's discretion, but that he will be under a duty to make payments to those who suffer huge hits, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. Given that the costs will not be one-off and that there could be myriad changes over the next decade, the Government should accede to our request that Parliament should, in years to come, be told what the costs are and what grants are being made to cover those costs.
An annual mechanism for accountability to Parliament is the best way in which the House can protect the interests of this country's small and medium-sized enterprises. In that spirit of honest inquiry, we are willing the Government to listen to the operators that have lobbied the Opposition Members who have spoken about these matters. Ministers must do the right thing by an important world-class industry: they must make sure that it remains a world-class industry and is not driven offshore by uncertainty and ridiculous cost impositions.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I am delighted to respond to the debate. I should first like to emphasise an important point that ran through the debate in Committee and that has been raised again this evening: that is, the Government's strong desire in everything we do in this sector to co-operate with industry. I repeat that we acknowledge that the arrangements and the apparatus established by the Bill will not succeed if that co-operation does not take place.
These amendments deal with four main issues, the first of which is whether an order made under clause 12 should be subject to the negative or affirmative resolution procedure. Secondly, the amendments propose that a technical approval board should be set up to oversee the duties placed on communication service providers. Thirdly, they propose that users of communication services should be consulted about the technical requirements that will be imposed on service providers. Fourthly, the amendments are designed to provide greater clarity regarding the cost of interception and who will pay.
All those issues were debated at length in Committee, at which time I indicated that I was sympathetic to the first of the amendments—the one dealing with the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure. I am pleased to report that, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and other speakers graciously acknowledged, the Government have introduced amendments Nos. 24 and 28, which will have the effect of making a clause 12 order subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, resolution procedure.
In Committee, I made it equally clear that, although I fully agreed that any requirements placed on industry by part I should be properly considered and reasonable, I was not sympathetic to the concept of a technical approval board, which remains the most substantive issue dividing the House. I explained at length in Committee why I believe that the existing provisions of the Bill achieve the desired aim, but I shall attempt to do so again now, albeit without subjecting the House to the extensive debate that the Committee enjoyed, both on that subject and on matters closely related to it. I am happy to summarise the Government's position.
7.45 pm
The Bill already provides the framework for a three-stage process to arrive at a reasonable intercept capability in respect of individual communication service providers. Given the comments of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), it is important to say which of those three stages would be removed if the technical approval board were to be established, in order to avoid an additional stage that carried implications of cost and bureaucracy.
The first stage is the Bill itself, which sets out the principle that responsibility for maintenance of an intercept capability should fall to the provider of the communication services. That is an established principle long adhered to by public telecommunications operators. It leads to the need for the second stage, which is a thorough consultation exercise on the draft clause 12 order—the generic reasonable intercept requirements document.
There is already a good deal of informal consultation going on, the debate on which has recently been informed by an independent report on the feasibility of intercepting

internet service providers. That report was commissioned by the Government and is now available on the Home Office website. Later this year, we shall publish a draft order for formal consultation with providers of communication services and regulatory bodies. Following the consultation, the Secretary of State will lay the order before Parliament. If Government amendment No. 24 is accepted, the order will be passed under the affirmative resolution procedure.
That is the second stage, consisting of substantial debate. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds spoke about seeking genuine input from the industry, but we believe that that process has already commenced and will continue. The hon. Gentleman also talked about my feet being held to the fire; I am glad to learn that the mid-19th century traditions of the public schools—whether Rugby or another—are alive in the modern Conservative party.

Mr. Ruffley: I did not go to Rugby.

Mr. Clarke: I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman did; I was saying that the ethos still infects his party today. However, I wish to place on record the fact that I do not enjoy having my feet held to the fire—no part of me takes pleasure in that.

Mr. Heald: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, especially with an intervention that is not even amusing. He says that the technical approval board is not a suitable body; however, paragraph 5.6 of the Government's original consultation document states:
The Government also proposes to appoint an independent body to provide impartial advice on how to balance the requirements of the agencies and CSPs. This should help to ensure that any requirements are reasonable, proportionate and do not place CSPs at a disadvantage.
What did they mean by that?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me back to earth after my far-ranging diversion following the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I shall come to the point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire shortly.
The third phase of the procedure consists of the serving of individual notices on communication service providers. The notices will say what providers are expected to provide and give the time scale within which they should provide it. Individual notices will result from dialogue between the Government and the service providers themselves. Each notice will take account of the precise circumstances, much of which information will be commercially sensitive, and it will be consistent with the order passed by Parliament. The purpose of the notices will ensure consistency across the industry. I emphasise that individual notices will not be imposed by any external body—for example, a technical approval board—but will result from dialogue between the Government and service providers.
The Opposition amendments would require a further step to take place—the approval of any requirements by a technical approval board. However, that presupposes that a notice has been served that is unreasonable, or that the service provider has been unable to comply with it. Either circumstance would be counterproductive and would not be brought about by the Government.


The effect would be that the service provider would be unable to comply, or would refuse to do so, which would place on the Secretary of State, if he wished to take enforcement action, the onus of convincing a court of the reasonableness and proportionality of the notice. It is difficult to see what a technical approval board could add to the process.
What would enhance the process is the proposal in the second stage of the generic reasonable intercept requirements document, under which we have established, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the consultative body with which we are discussing these matters in a consistent and inclusive way. That was referred to in his document.
If the proposal made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire were agreed by the House, I would be concerned about how the six members of the putative technical approval board would be selected, and how they would consider applications in commercial confidence. As I made it clear in Committee, I believe that those are difficult issues. We believe that the proper way is to consult the industry.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was significant industry support for a technical approval board. However, in the responses to the consultation document, the industry did not generally support the idea of an independent industry body. We responded by setting up the general consultation, which has been described.
In the light of what we have just heard, I want to place it on record that the Home Office has received no representations supporting the idea, despite our regular contact with the Federation of the Electronics Industry and the operators' group. The Home Office has day-to-day contact with the telecommunications operators that have a current intercept capability. They are understandably reluctant to share commercial secrets, although they willingly share interception methods where that does not compromise their commercial position.
I am happy to examine the detailed correspondence and the survey that the hon. Gentleman has conducted on the matter. It is perfectly reasonable for him to do that, and I shall consider his conclusions. I emphasise that the Home Office has not had representations from the industry supporting the idea of a technical approval body. The responses to our original consultation document were not positive in that regard, either.

Mr. Heald: The original proposal was that approval would be given by Oftel, which is quite different from what I am proposing.

Mr. Clarke: I understand that. It is a fair point. I do not seek to second-guess the hon. Gentleman, but we have not had representations from the industry supporting the idea of a technical approval board.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. If he thinks that the proposal is worth considering, is it possible for the Home Office to consult on it to satisfy itself?

Mr. Clarke: The debate is public, and our discussions with the industry continue, both with individual ISPs and with the associations. I do not believe that a more beneficial situation would result from the imposition of the proposed body, on top of the three-stage process that I described, given that—I place this on record again—we are seeking agreement before introducing any order. That is why I must resist the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
Amendment No. 12 proposes that users of communication services should be formally consulted about the order made under clause 12. As I explained in Committee, it is right that the wider public should have the opportunity to offer their opinion on the general use of interception and the circumstances in which it may be deployed. They took that up during the public consultation exercise, and they will have the opportunity to comment on the codes of practice when we consult on those later this year. Although we will publish the draft on the Home Office website for all to see, we have not extended the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult more widely than the Bill provides.
On the Government amendments, I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that, following consideration of the representations, we tabled amendments Nos. 24 and 28 to make the clause 12 order subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, resolution procedure. I hope that that will provide reassurance.
As we acknowledged throughout the debate, and as the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention, cost is an extremely important consideration. I am conscious of the fact that there are serious questions relating to the costs and their apportionment between Government and industry.
The Opposition amendment requiring that the Secretary of State "shall", rather than "may", make payments to communication service providers was discussed at length in Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), offered in Committee to include in the Bill a provision making clear the Government's intention to continue to meet marginal costs. In the light of that commitment, Opposition Members withdrew their previous identical amendment on the matter. The Government have now tabled, as promised, amendment No. 25, setting out our commitment to continue the payment of marginal costs. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and acknowledgement of that.
Amendment No. 13 demands that the Secretary of State report annually to Parliament providing information on what payments have been made to whom, and if payments have not been made, the reasons why that is so. We cannot support the amendment and hope that, on serious reflection, the Opposition will withdraw it.
We believe that the amendment would fatally undermine the interception regime if it became publicly known which communication service providers were maintaining an intercept capability. On publication of the annual report, criminals would automatically move their custom to communication service providers that were not listed as having received contribution payments from the Government to provide interception assistance. Moreover, we do not think that CSPs would wish their individual assistance to be publicly acknowledged in such a manner.
Similarly, the specific reasons why payments have been made and the particular level at which they have been set in a particular case may touch on operational practices which could adversely impact on law enforcement practices and capabilities.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments with regard to the technical board, although I do not accept them, but I hope that on this issue, he will concede that his amendment would be damaging to law enforcement in this country, which I know is not his intention.
New clauses 4 and 6 introduce a right of appeal within seven days of a notice being served that payment by the Government will not be made, or if the recipient of the notice considers the payment to be insufficient. Although I understand the intentions behind these new clauses, I do not consider them to be necessary.
My final point refers to the Smith report. Hon. Members will be aware of the report, which has been produced by independent consultants and has been published on the Home Office website. The report discusses the various interception capabilities that may be required and the different costs involved in supplying those requirements. The document will be used to inform our consultations with industry on how costs should be allocated.
Once consultations have been completed, we will set out in secondary legislation how costs will be allocated between industry and Government. Following on from that, decisions on specific cost allocation will be reached with each individual CSP by mutual agreement, after comprehensive consultations. That is exactly how decisions are currently reached—through mutual agreement on an individual basis. We have not encountered any calls from industry to change the current arrangements that I have just described.
In the light of comments made in the House and outside, I shall comment on some of the proposed costings. There has been a suggestion that £34 million is the appropriate cost, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds mentioned. That assumes that all 400 ISPs will be obliged to possess an e-mail active intercept capability, amounting to £17 million, and furthermore that the 20 largest ISPs will be obliged to possess a semi-active or passive capability, amounting to another £17 million.
I make it clear that that is not the intention at all. We do not currently require all public telecommunications operators to possess an intercept capability, and we do not expect to ask all ISPs to carry an intercept capability. We therefore consider the £30 million price tag as overestimating considerably the overall costs of providing a reasonable intercept capability.
8 pm
We have not rushed to put a price tag on the overall costs. However, figures in the report do not contradict the views in the regulatory impact assessment which was published with the Bill. It estimated that the costs would be less than £20 million for the whole industry. We debated that in Committee.
We have been in continuing discussions with industry for a considerable time. The Smith report will be used as the basis for informed discussions with individual service providers and others. We welcome constructive

discussion with them. After we have consulted industry about those points and the specific point that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made, we have shall have a clear view of the potential costs. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that the Smith report concluded that the burden on industry to fulfil the Bill's obligations is "not onerous". I believe that that is so.
I have tried to tackle as fully as possible the points that the amendments raised. I hope that hon. Members will support our amendments and reject those of the Opposition.

Mr. Peter Luff: It is appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) opened the debate because, on this occasion, the Opposition is like Oliver: we are asking for more. Sadly, the Minister has not acceded to that request, and we regret that.
Let us deal first with the amendments that tackle the reimbursement of costs. While we welcome Government amendment No. 25, it does not go far enough. We cannot understand why the Government continue to resist amendment No. 13. Government amendment No. 25 appears to impose a duty on the Secretary of State. To change "may he thinks fit" to "shall" is eminently sensible. However, the absence of a right of appeal on reimbursement is worrying. The Minister spoke in reassuring terms about the total cost of the process, but I do not share his optimism.
I draw the Minister's attention to the Smith report's clear finding that there is no single solution to the problem and that different costs will be imposed on different internet service providers. Although the Minister said that he would discuss with them the way in which the costs would be apportioned and the burdens that would be placed on them, the private sector does not always trust Governments.
The Minister made a useful point about new clause 4 and the duty to report to the House. However, it is important to have some idea of the costs that the Bill will impose on the Government and the providers. Although we shall not press new clause 4 to a Division this evening, I strongly suspect that we shall revert to it in another place.
The Minister spoke of a three-stage process for the technical approval board. The third stage was consulting with those who will be subject to the orders. That is all very splendid, but what if the dialogue, about which the Minister spoke so movingly, fails? What if the Government get it wrong? After all, Governments have been known to get it wrong. The Minister may have reservations about our proposed technical approval board, although Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members did not criticise it.
The technical approval board is the right way forward and the Minister needs to reconsider the matter. He will have to undertake the functions that would be delegated to a technical approval board; he said that in the original consultation document. I am glad that he is prepared to reconsider information from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I hope that he will return to the subject.
We welcome the Government's change of heart on the order-making powers, which have worried the Opposition throughout the Bill's passage. However, the burdens that


the Bill imposes on individual providers remain a matter for discussion between the Government and those providers. The order, which is now subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, is general and permissive. The devil will indeed be in the detail.
The Minister has underplayed the risk of undermining confidence in the e-commerce revolution in this country. He has failed to grasp the risk of discrimination—unintentional, I am sure—by the Government against individual service providers through the different burdens that technical requirements or costs place upon them.
I am unable to give the Minister the assurance that he sought. We shall press new clause 2 to a vote. If time permitted, we would have like to press other amendments in the group. New clause 2 is a surrogate for our remaining deep anxieties about the sad inadequacy of the Government's response.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 296.

Division No. 181]
[8.4 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Amess, David
Faber, David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Fallon, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fearn, Ronnie


Baldry, Tony
Flight, Howard


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bercow, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam


Blunt, Crispin
Fraser, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Brady, Graham
Gibb, Nick


Brand, Dr Peter
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Gorrie, Donald


Breed, Colin
Gray, James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Green, Damian


Browning, Mrs Angela
Greenway, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Burstow, Paul
Hammond, Philip


Butterfill, John
Hancock, Mike


Cable, Dr Vincent
Hawkins, Nick


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)
Heald, Oliver



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cash, William
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Chidgey, David
Hunter, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Jenkin, Bernard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith,



Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Collins, Tim
Key, Robert


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Cotter, Brian
Kirkwood, Archy


Cran, James
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui



Lansley, Andrew


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Leigh, Edward


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Letwin, Oliver


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Day, Stephen
Lidington, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)




Luff, Peter
Shepherd, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Spicer, Sir Michael


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Streeter, Gary


Major, Rt Hon John
Stunell, Andrew


Malins, Humfrey
Swayne, Desmond


Maples, John
Syms, Robert


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Norman, Archie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Townend, John


Öpik, Lembit
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Tyrie, Andrew


Page, Richard
Viggers, Peter



Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Webb, Steve


Paterson, Owen
Wells, Bowen


Pickles, Eric
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Prior, David
Whittingdale, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Robathan, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Robertson, Laurence
Willetts, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wilshire, David


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ruffley, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


St Aubyn, Nick


Sanders, Adrian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. John Randall and


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ainger, Nick
Chaytor, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clelland, David


Austin, John
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Battle, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Cohen, Harry


Beard, Nigel
Coleman, Iain


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Colman, Tony


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cooper, Yvette


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corston, Jean


Bermingham, Gerald
Cousins, Jim


Berry, Roger
Crausby, David


Best, Harold
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blizzard, Bob
Cummings, John


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dalyell, Tam


Bradshaw, Ben
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davidson, Ian


Browne, Desmond
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Burden, Richard
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Burgon, Colin
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Butler, Mrs Christine


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dawson, Hilton


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Denham, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dismore, Andrew


Cawsey, Ian
Dobbin, Jim





Donohoe, Brian H
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Doran, Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Dowd, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Drew, David
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Laxton, Bob


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lepper, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Levitt, Tom


Edwards, Huw
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Efford, Clive
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Ennis, Jeff
Linton, Martin


Etherington, Bill
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lock, David


Fisher, Mark
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Flynn, Paul
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McDonnell, John


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McIsaac, Shona


Foulkes, George
McNamara, Kevin


Fyfe, Maria
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gapes, Mike
McWalter, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWilliam, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mallaber, Judy


Godsiff, Roger
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Goggins, Paul
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maxton, John


Grocott, Bruce
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Meale, Alan


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hanson, David
Miller, Andrew


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mitchell, Austin


Healey, John
Moffatt, Laura


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Heppell, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hesford, Stephen
Morley, Elliot


Hill, Keith
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle(B'ham Yardley)


Hinchliffe, David


Hoey, Kate
Mountford, Kali


Hood, Jimmy
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mudie, George


Hope, Phil
Mullin, Chris


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Howells, Dr Kim
Norris, Dan


Hoyle, Lindsay
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Olner, Bill


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Neill, Martin


Hurst, Alan
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hutton, John
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Iddon, Dr Brian
Palmer, Dr Nick


Illsley, Eric
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pickthall, Colin


Jenkins, Brian
Pike, Peter L


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)
Pope, Greg



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kemp, Fraser
Prosser, Gwyn


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Purchase, Ken


Khabra, Piara S
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kidney, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Rt Hon Giles




Rammell, Bill
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Raynsford, Nick


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rooney, Terry
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Timms, Stephen


Rowlands, Ted
Tipping, Paddy


Roy, Frank
Todd, Mark


Ruane, Chris
Touhig, Don


Ruddock, Joan
Trickett, Jon


Ryan, Ms Joan
Truswell, Paul


Salter, Martin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Sheerman, Barry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Singh, Marsha
Tynan, Bill


Skinner, Dennis
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Watts, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wicks, Malcolm


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)


Soley, Clive
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Wood, Mike


Stevenson, George
Woolas, Phil


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Worthington, Tony


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wray, James


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stoate, Dr Howard


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Tellers for the Noes:


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Mr. David Jamieson and


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. Tony McNulty.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A NOTICE TO DISCLOSE A KEY TO PROTECTED INFORMATION

'(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) with intent to impede access to protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form, he fails to comply in accordance with a section 46 notice with a requirement of that notice to disclose a key to protected information;
(b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that possession of the key is necessary to obtain access to the protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form; and
(c) he is a person who has, or who after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose the key, had possession of the key.

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he fails to comply in accordance with a section 46 notice with a requirement of that notice to disclose a key to protected information;
(b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that possession of the key is necessary to obtain access to the protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form;
(c) he a person—

(i) who has had possession of the key; and
(ii) who has, or who after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose the


key had, possession of information which would (either on its own or in combination with other information) enable possession of the key to be obtained; and
(d) with intent to impede access to protected information or the putting of that information into an intelligible form, he did not before the time by which he was required to disclose the key, make a disclosure to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key of all such information in his possession which would (either on its own or in combination with other information) enable possession of the key to be obtained.

(3) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for that person to show—

(a) in the case of an offence under subsection (1), that it was not reasonably practicable for him to make a disclosure of the key before the time by which he was required to do so;
(b) in the case of an offence under subsection (2), that it was not reasonably practicable for him, before the time by which he was required to disclose the key, to make such a disclosure as is mentioned in subsection 2(d); and
(c) where in either case it has since that time become reasonably practicable for him to make a disclosure of the key or of information which would (either on its own or in combination with other information) enable possession of the key to be obtained, he has made such a disclosure to the person to whom he was required to disclose the key.

(4) Except in a case where there is no authorisation for the purposes of section 47, in proceedings for an offence under this section a person shall have a defence under subsection (3) only if he also shows that it was not reasonably practicable for him to comply with the requirement in the manner allowed by that section.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 293.

Division No. 182]
[8.16 pm


AYES


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brand, Dr Peter
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Breed, Colin
Gorrie, Donald


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hancock, Mike


Burstow, Paul
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Kirkwood, Archy



Öpik, Lembit



Sanders, Adrian


Chidgey, David
Stunell, Andrew


Cotter, Brian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Webb, Steve


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mr. Bob Russell and


Fearn, Ronnie
Sir Robert Smith.



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Atherton, Ms Candy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atkins, Charlotte


Allen, Graham
Austin, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Barnes, Harry


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Battle, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bayley, Hugh





Beard, Nigel
Etherington, Bill


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Flynn, Paul


Bennett, Andrew F
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benton, Joe
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Berry, Roger
Foulkes, George


Best, Harold
Fyfe, Maria


Blears, Ms Hazel
Gapes, Mike


Blizzard, Bob
Gibson, Dr Ian


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Godman, Dr Norman A


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Godsiff, Roger


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Goggins, Paul


Bradshaw, Ben
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Browne, Desmond
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burgon, Colin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cawsey, Ian
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hanson, David


Chaytor, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clapham, Michael
Healey, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hill, Keith


Clelland, David
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Ann
Hoey, Kate


Coaker, Vernon
Hood, Jimmy


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Coleman, Iain
Hope, Phil


Colman, Tony
Hopkins, Kelvin


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)



Howells, Dr Kim


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cooper, Yvette
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Jean
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cousins, Jim
Hurst, Alan


Crausby, David
Hutton, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jenkins, Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)



Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dawson, Hilton
Kemp, Fraser


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dismore, Andrew
Khabra, Piara S


Dobbin, Jim
Kidney, David


Donohoe, Brian H
Kilfoyle, Peter


Doran, Frank
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dowd, Jim
Kumar, Dr Ashok



Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Drew, David
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Laxton, Bob


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lepper, David


Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)
Levitt, Tom


Edwards, Huw
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Efford, Clive
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Ennis, Jeff
Linton, Martin






Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lock, David
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Roy, Frank


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruane, Chris


McDonnell, John
Ruddock, Joan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ryan, Ms Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Sarwar, Mohammad


McNamara, Kevin
Sawford, Phil


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sedgemore, Brian


McWalter, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWilliam, John
Singh, Marsha


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Snape, Peter


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Meale, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stevenson, George


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Miller, Andrew
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mitchell, Austin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moffatt, Laura
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morley, Elliot



Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)



Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Mountford, Kali
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mudie, George
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mullin, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Tipping, Paddy


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Todd, Mark


Norris, Dan
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Trickett, Jon


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Truswell, Paul


Olner Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pearson, Ian
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



Tynan, Bill


Perham, Ms Linda
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pickthall, Colin
Ward, Ms Claire


Pike, Peter L
Wareing, Robert N


Plaskitt James
Watts, David


Pollard, Kerry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pond, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Pope, Greg
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Primarolo, Dawn
Winnick, David


Prosser, Gwyn
Wood, Mike


Purchase, Ken
Woolas, Phil


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Worthington, Tony


Quinn, Lawrie
Wray, James


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Rammell, Bill



Raynsford, Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Mr. Tony McNulty and


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4

POWER TO PROVIDE FOR LAWFUL INTERCEPTION

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 6, line 21, leave out from "question" to end of line 24 and insert—

'(d) the situation is one in relation to which such further condition as may be prescribed by regulations mad by the Secretary of State are required to be satisfied before conduct may be treated as authorised by virtue of this subsection; and
(e) the conditions so prescribed are satisfied in relation to that situation.'.
The intention of this subsection is to give effect to mutual legal assistance agreements. However, concerns were raised in Committee that in this part of the Bill there may be a loophole that would allow unwarranted interception to take place in the United Kingdom, perhaps to assist the authorities in another country, without the Secretary of State laying down the conditions in regulations.
Although there was no intention of using this subsection in that way, the amendment will ensure that it has no effect until the Secretary of State makes the regulations that we have always envisaged.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

INTERCEPTION WITH A WARRANT

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 7, line 26, leave out "the Secretary of State" and insert "a judge".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 61, in page 7, line 45, leave out "The Secretary of State" and insert "a judge".
Amendment No. 62, in page 8, line 9, leave out "the Secretary of State" and insert "a judge".
Amendment No. 63, in page 8, line 30, at end add—
(7) The Secretary of State shall by order set out the procedures by which judges shall be selected for the purposes of this section.
(8) The Secretary shall not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
Government amendment No. 64.
Amendment No. 6, in clause 6, page 8, line 44, at end insert—
'( ) the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency;'.
Government amendment No. 22.
Amendment No. 1, in page 9, leave out lines 4 and 5.
Government amendment No. 23.
Amendment No. 2, in page 9, line 14, at end add—
'(6) An interception warrant shall not be issued in respect of any application made by or on behalf of a Permanent Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Defence unless it has been authorised by a Secretary of State other than the Secretary of State for Defence'.


Amendment No. 3, in clause 7, page 9, line 18, after "official" add
'who may not be an official responsible to, or subject to, the direction of the person applying for the warrant.'.
Government amendment No. 27.

Mr. Hughes: It would be unreasonable to say that the amendment breaks new ground. Not only did the Committee discuss who should authorise interception with a warrant; my reading of what was said then shows me that the Minister knew that we had engaged in a similar debate during the Committee stage of the Terrorism Bill, and on the Floor of the House. I was only mildly miffed to note from the report that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) had done so much better than me in putting the case; I am only sorry that he cannot be here tonight to put it even more wonderfully.
In the debate about who should be able to authorise an interception with a warrant in areas that are clearly important to the public, the interesting question is whether the division of powers means that it is better for the warrant to be issued by a politician—however quasi-judicially he may act—or by a judge. We have argued in regard to this Bill, as we argued in regard to the Terrorism Bill, that a judge should give that authority.
The second sub-debate concerns the sort of judge who should be involved. Having read the report of the Committee debate, I appreciate that a judge picked at random from the whole range of circuit judges, with no particular experience, might not command sufficient confidence. That is why amendment No. 63 suggests that the judge should be
selected for the purposes of this section.
I suggest not only that there should be a panel from which the judge to authorise a warrant for interception is drawn, but that the panel should consist of senior judges. If the Government conceded the principle and we embarked on a debate about what sort of judge should be involved, I would argue that it should be a High Court judge rather than a circuit judge, because an application of this kind is not sought or granted all that often.
8.30 pm
The Government have argued that this should be a political, though quasi-judicial, decision. Although that has not been the unanimous view even of Conservative Members, in Committee the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and others favoured a decision on the part of the Executive, on the basis that the judiciary could then be used to review the Executive's decision. I understand that argument. Our only core reason for believing that appropriately qualified, appropriately senior judges would be better is the fact that they not only are, but are seen to be, independent of political pressures.
We are deciding who should authorise the interception of people's communications and, indeed, the invasion of people's privacy. We believe that, because this will often involve the organ of the state acting on behalf of, and accountable to, Ministers—frequently to the Home Secretary if the intelligence services are involved—it is better to separate the agencies who seek the authority

from the person who gives that authority. It is a straightforward case; we have made it before, and I hope that I have made it sufficiently clearly today. It applies to amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 62. Amendment No. 63 both provides for the process by which judges are selected, and provides that the order should be laid before both Houses of Parliament and require a positive resolution procedure.
We welcome amendment No. 64. I understand that the Government tabled it after hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) argue that there was confusion, and a potential conflict of interests, with the original proposal that, in relation to the Ministry of Defence, the decision should be made by a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence—a Minister. He argued—and we are grateful to the Government for accepting his argument—that the decision should be made by the head of the relevant service: the Chief of Defence Intelligence. My right hon. Friend spoke on the basis of his experience and as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we are glad that his suggestion was accepted.
We oppose amendment No. 6, tabled by Conservative Members.

Mr. Heald: Shame!

Mr. Hughes: It is not a shame at all; it is a shame that the amendment was tabled.
There seems to be a dichotomy, a dilemma and a contradiction in the Tory party. The Tories are concerned about excessive powers in the Bill: their reasoned amendment, which we shall debate on Third Reading, puts that case. We have similar concerns—although we do not draw the same conclusions about how to proceed at this stage—but we do not think that the specific additional person who should have power to pry into people's affairs and intercept communications should be someone from the Benefits Agency. Benefit fraud exists, as does tax fraud and other fraud in society, but we must ensure that we authorise clearly, for particular purposes, the interception of communications.
Clause 6 sets out not only individuals and persons who are entitled to make the application in this country—they are the heads of various services: the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, other chief constables, and commissioners of Customs and Excise; the head of defence intelligence is added in amendment No. 64—but the heads of the competent authorities elsewhere.
Then we have the debate about whether the Secretary of State should have the power to add or not to add to those people. The Conservative party wants specifically to add the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. Such people are not in the same league as those other people, who work in services that, in essence, are to do with crime and the detection of crime. We believe that that is appropriate as a grouping. It would be inappropriate for the chief executive of the Benefits Agency to be added to that list.
Government amendment No. 22 is a further amendment that we welcome. It follows along the lines of amendment No. 1, which we tabled and which was to leave out lines 4 and 5; the Government proposal is to leave out lines


4 to 9. It is all part of the tightening of the provision at the end of clause 6, which in our view should not allow the Government either to add or to take away at their own instigation the people who should be in that specialist list.
We are grateful again that there has been a move from the Government. We accept that the balance is right. If we are going to ensure that the Government should not have the power to add at their own instigation, of course they should not have the power to take away at their own instigation, either. That matter should come before Parliament. The legislation should be amended if the Government want to make that change.
That deals with Government amendment No. 23, too, which leaves amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and Government amendment No. 27. We have dealt with amendments Nos. 2 and 64, which replace a Permanent Secretary in the MOD with a Chief of Defence Intelligence. Amendment No. 3 is linked with that. Amendment No. 27 is the consequential Government amendment; it follows as a result of the earlier ones.
The net effect of the group is to introduce welcome concessions by the Government, specifically in relation to the MOD and to restricting the power to add and to take away; all that is welcome. There is the other proposal from the Conservative party, about which I have indicated our view and for which Conservative Members, to be fair to them, have argued before. We have been around that circuit. That leaves us with the substantive debate about who is the appropriate body to authorise interception of communication.
It is a matter of confidence. The working of the whole process depends on the authorities doing their job responsibly. Public approbation and confidence depend on the public believing that they trust the people who work the system. People say, "If you are not happy with the system, you can challenge it," but, by the nature of that particular part of public life, people may not know that they have been the subject of an application for a warrant, that a warrant has been issued and that someone has been intercepting communications, whether it be their e-mails, telephone calls or other communication.
It is important to have the maximum confidence in the authorities. Fairly narrow and specific authorisations can be applied for under the legislation; authorisations in relation to communications at home. In relation to communications in this country, people have to apply for a specific purpose, but there are wide-ranging authorisations in relation to communications between countries.
My understanding of the legislation is that, unamended, it will allow a general application to be made that is not specific to, for example, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) or me. However, an application could encompass us all if it has been made, for example, by NCIS in relation to information on drug dealing, or by Customs and Excise in relation to the importation or exportation of drugs. Such an application could be made because an authority believes that a dialogue on such matters is being conducted by mobile telephone, pager or e-mail between people in the United Kingdom and people in another jurisdiction.
Such provision would be worrying, especially as people would not know that their communications are being intercepted unless they are informed of it or accidentally

discover it. We believe that it could be made less worrying by ensuring that the person authorising the interception is the most independent authority possible, who could ensure protection of the citizen's rights.
I have never understood the great resistance to the idea—although I understand its logic—that authorisation should require judicial intervention. The United Kingdom has always required police to go to magistrates to obtain a search warrant, to ensure that that invasion of someone's privacy—which may entail breaking down a door, searching documents or stopping someone on the street using extraordinary powers—is authorised by someone who is independent of the investigation and prosecution processes.
As I have gone round this course several times, I sense that the Government will not change their position on the issue. We have had no inkling that they are about to shift on it, and I do not read such a change in the Minister's body language. However, the case for a change has been made as strongly and persuasively in our consideration of this Bill as it has been in our consideration of previous legislation. Even if we do not win the argument today, I hope that we have flagged up the issue for our friends in the other place, and that they will come to the view that an appropriate level of the judiciary, rather than Ministers, should authorise the interception of normal communications between individuals. Whatever else is said about such an interception, it is an invasion by the state of an individual's liberty. It should be done only with the most stringent safeguards.

Mr. Heald: As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) knows, Conservative Members do not share his view on amendment No. 60—that a judge should decide whether an interception warrant is granted. As we have explained on previous occasions, the Opposition's view is that the Secretary of State—with the unique knowledge that he possesses, and the frequency with which he will be dealing with those issues—is best placed to make that decision. Interestingly, on Second Reading, the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), very forcefully made the point that Secretaries of State take those responsibilities particularly seriously.
We welcome some of the Government amendments in this group. We certainly welcome Government amendment No. 22, which restricts the list of those who may apply for an interception warrant by removing the catch-all clause 6(2)(k), which provides that an application may be made by or on behalf of
any such other person as the Secretary of State may by order designate for the purposes of this subsection.
We welcome the concession made in Government amendment No. 23, that the power to remove by order a person from the list should be deleted from the Bill.
We also welcome the Government's decision to change the person responsible for defence-related applications to the Chief of Defence Intelligence. The argument on that matter emerged in Committee and was well made, particularly by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
Amendment No. 6 seeks to add the chief executive of the Benefits Agency to the list. It is a recognition of the seriousness with which the Opposition view the issue of


benefit fraud, especially how it should be fought. We say that, in some ways, the Bill does not provide crime fighters with all that they need. The chief executive of the Benefits Agency seems to be the senior official responsible for the detection of benefit fraud and, as such, we believe that he should be included in the list.
Benefit fraud is by far the most substantial crime by value committed in the United Kingdom. The Government say that it is so important that the security services can be involved in the worst cases, investigating organised crime. It is a pity, then, that the Benefits Agency should have to rely on the work of the National Criminal Intelligence Service or others to carry out its function.
When I suggested in Committee that the relevant person should be the Under-Secretary at the Department of Social Security, the Minister said that I was wrong and that the provision should refer to the Benefits Agency—so here it is: how about it?

Mr. Charles Clarke: I have appreciated throughout our proceedings the jovial and positive spirit of our exchanges.
The intention of amendments Nos. 60 to 63 is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to issue interception warrants and to hand it to the judiciary—specifically to judges selected by the Secretary of State by order.
As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) acknowledged, the debate has a long history. I hear the arguments urged by those who advocate judicial involvement but, as I have said on several previous occasions, they do not persuade me. This is not only body language: it is words.
I maintain the view that authorising interception involves particularly sensitive decisions that are properly a matter for the Executive. The warrant-issuing process is a key part of the line of accountability from the law enforcement and intelligence agencies to the Secretary of State and then to Parliament.
There is certainly a place for judicial involvement, and that comes in the independent judicial oversight provided by the commissioners and the tribunal, who are there to provide a remedy if the Executive has acted outside its statutory powers. I do not believe, however, that judges can reasonably be expected to make decisions on what is or is not in the interests of national security, or that they are appropriately accountable.
The European Court of Human Rights has endorsed the present practice of Executive authorisation, for example in Christie v. UK. In addition, the system was recently endorsed in the latest report of the Interception of Communications Act commissioner, an independent and senior member of the judiciary.
I can assure hon. Members that the present system continues to work well, has safeguards built into it and is subject to judicial scrutiny. I hope that hon. Members will not press the amendments to a vote. If not, I ask my hon. Friends to oppose them.
There is more substantial debate to be had on the matter, but I do not want to detain the House on the point, as we debated it at great length not only in Committee

and on Second Reading on this Bill but in Committee and on Report on the Terrorism Bill. I have summarised what I think are the key points.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There is a reasonable concern about one matter with which the Minister has not dealt. When the agency that applies for the warrant is one for which the Secretary of State is responsible, it would appear that both the applicant, and the person applied to, have the same state interest. That would be the most obvious instance of lack of independent adjudication.

Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said earlier, Secretaries of State of all parties have taken seriously their responsibility to scrutinise such requests for warrants most carefully.

Mr. Hughes: indicated assent.

Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that, as he did earlier. That scrutiny process is genuine, and I do not believe that judges can reasonably be expected to make judgments on what is in the interests of national security. That is quite properly a matter for the relevant Secretary of State. I understand that other countries have other practices, but we have come to the conclusion that I set out.
I was grateful for the support of Opposition spokesmen on Government amendment No. 64. We have taken seriously the points made in Committee by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and a subsequent letter from the Intelligence and Security Committee reflecting that discussion. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for the constructive way in which he has addressed those concerns by agreeing to our proposals.
In relation to the warranty proposals, we have carefully considered how to make it clearer that MOD procedures will possess sufficient checks and balances. I have written to members of the Intelligence and Security Committee explaining how we have sought to deal with that. Government amendment No. 64 proposes that the Chief of Defence Intelligence at the MOD should now be the designated office with authority to apply for an interception warrant. It would then fall to a separate unit within the MOD to process and check the warrant application, as happens for similar applications that go to the Home Secretary and other Secretaries of State. I hope that that solution satisfies the concerns that were raised.
Amendment No. 6 concerns the Benefits Agency. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire for technically correcting his amendment in the spirit of the Bill. However, we have debated the issues already. I do not recall my words in Committee in full, but I said that our objections were not just to the incorrect technical wording but to points of substances. I sympathise with the intention to put proper and appropriate measures in place to combat benefit fraud, but providing the Benefits Agency with the power to apply for, and carry through, interception warrants is neither appropriate or necessary.
If the police wish to intercept a communication, they must apply through the National Criminal Intelligence Service. For that reason, individual police forces are not able to apply in their own right. Similarly, if the DSS is working on a serious fraud inquiry with the police, it can


either apply through the police, via NCIS, for an interception warrant or it can apply to NCIS directly. There is therefore no need for the Benefits Agency to be added to that list in its own right. It does not possess the technical capability to intercept communications and we have no intention of giving it that capability. We have not received a formal request from the DSS or Benefits Agency for them to be considered as an intercepting agency. The hon. Gentleman makes a sincere point that we need to make available whatever powers we can to deal with benefit fraud, but the systems that we have in place are competent to do so. I hope that he will not press his amendment; if he is does so, I urge my colleagues to reject it.
I urge hon. Members not to press amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and hope that they will welcome the Government amendments that we have tabled in their place. I understand that that is acceptable. We have listened to what has been said, so amendments Nos. 22 and 23 remove from the Bill the power of the Secretary of State to designate by order persons to be added to, or removed from, the list of those who may apply for an interception warrant. That goes further than amendment No. 1, which states that the Secretary of State may not by designated order add names to the list only. Government amendment No. 27 is purely consequential.
Amendment No. 2 calls for a Secretary of State other than the Secretary of State for Defence to authorise MOD warrants. Government amendment No. 64 deals with that point adequately.
The intention behind amendment No. 3 is to ensure that the senior official authorised in clause 7 to issue an interception warrant in urgent cases or under international mutual assistance provisions should not be responsible to, or under the direction of, the person applying for that warrant. The amendment is not necessary for several reasons. First, in an urgent case, the Secretary of State has already
expressly authorised the issue of the warrant.
Therefore, it is of no concern who directs the senior official. He is only issuing the warrant after the Secretary of State has already agreed it. Secondly, the other reason for a senior official issuing a warrant is to action a request on international mutual assistance grounds. The amendment does not apply to that case for the simple reason that the senior official is not responsible to, or under the direction of, the competent authorities of a foreign power.
I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments, in some cases because the Government have met their concerns and in others because the concerns expressed are misplaced. If they do press them, I urge the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We accept that Government amendments Nos. 22 and 23 cover amendment No. 1. As the Minister hoped, we are happy to accept Government amendment No. 64, which covers amendment No. 2. I hear what the Minister says about amendment No. 3 and he has a reasonable argument. We may come back to the issue in the other place after reflection.
In relation to amendment No. 60 and the associated amendments, we anticipated that the Government would not budge. I do not propose to delay the House again on

a principle about which it has made its view clear on several recent occasions. The Minister acknowledged that judicial authority is given in other countries, and that in some countries the national security consideration can be separated and given to Ministers, while judges deal with other considerations. A third category exists, in which countries have a twin-track authorisation procedure.
I accept that the Minister is right to say that some external approval has been given to the process that the Government have traditionally used, and that it is supported in various quarters.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

APPLICATION FOR ISSUE OF AN INTERCEPTION WARRANT

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 8, line 44, leave out paragraph (i) and insert—
'(i) the Chief of Defence Intelligence;'.

No. 22, in page 9, leave out lines 4 to 9.

No. 23, in page 9, line 13, leave out subsection (5).—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 12

MAINTENANCE OF INTERCEPTION CAPABILITY

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 14, line 41, at end insert—
'(6A) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 13

GRANTS FOR INTERCEPTION COSTS

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 15, line 28, at end insert—
'( ) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that arrangements are in force for securing that persons on whom obligations are imposed by virtue of an order under section 12 receive, by way of payments under this section, such contributions as he thinks appropriate towards the costs incurred, or likely to be incurred, by them in complying with requirements to provide assistance with giving effect to interception warrants.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 17

EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 16

Jane Kennedy: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 19, line 4, after "Tribunal", insert—
'( ) any proceedings on an appeal or review for which provision is made by an order under section 58(7);'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 50, 84 to 86, 51 to 53, 42 and 43.

Jane Kennedy: These amendments all deal with the jurisdiction of the tribunal, but amendments Nos. 83 to 86 relate to the tribunal's jurisdiction in Scotland. The amendments would extend the tribunal's human rights jurisdiction to include any directed or intrusive


surveillance, and any conduct or use of a covert human intelligence source, where any of these activities take place in Scotland.
However, I must advise the House of something about which we became aware this morning. At one point, there had been the possibility that a separate Scottish tribunal would be established, but the Scottish Executive has considered the matter and decided to join the tribunal arrangements for the rest of the United Kingdom. The amendments should ensure that a proper avenue of redress is available wherever in the UK any investigatory powers are used.
We have discovered that, to be effective, the amendments require one further amendment, which I believe to be of a minor and technical nature, to clause 56. It has not been possible to table the necessary amendment for today's debate, as the notice was too short, but we intend to table the last in this set of amendments when the Bill is considered in another place. That will ensure that the tribunal's jurisdiction is extended to Scotland, in accordance with the policy agreed here and in Edinburgh.

Mr. Heald: The amendments are not contentious. The Parliamentary Secretary has outlined the technical problem that has been encountered, but the Opposition do not consider that that should delay matters. We hope that the appropriate amendment can be made in the other place.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, shall deal with the Scottish point. I am in no position to disagree with the Scottish Executive: if it has agreed the matter, it must be right.
I have not had an opportunity to be briefed on the development set out by the Parliamentary Secretary, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is the Deputy First Minister in Scotland, with responsibility for this matter there. We have worked with him on those areas of legislation that are devolved to Scotland, on those on which Scotland has allowed the Westminster legislation to be used, and on those about which there is agreement that legislation should apply across the UK. For students of devolution, this Bill has all three options available, and it provides an interesting case study.
However, I have one question for the Parliamentary Secretary. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 provide for interim rules governing the tribunal, but I am not clear why we need interim rules. There may be a good reason. It struck me that another group of amendments, to be debated later, contain an interim provision. There should be no need for interim rules; it should be possible to have draft rules and then move straight to the formal ones. Amendment No. 43 provides for a 40-day period. I am open to persuasion, but I would be grateful to know why interim rules are being proposed.
I think that amendment No. 52 is the Government's response to some of the concerns expressed in Committee by my hon. Friends, for which we are grateful. We support amendments Nos. 49 and 50.

9 pm

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is right about amendment No. 52. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 relate to the tribunal rules for which clause 60 provides. We had a lengthy discussion in Committee about the order-making powers in the Bill. It is important that the tribunal established by the Bill is able to hear any complaints as soon as the surveillance provisions come into force. For the tribunal to function, rules must be made governing its procedure. They will require parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure.
The amendments allow such rules to be made by the Secretary of State in the absence of Parliament between the Bill receiving Royal Assent and Parliament reconvening after the summer recess. That is their sole purpose. It is necessary to ensure that the tribunal is functioning when the surveillance provisions come into force before 2 October, when the Human Rights Act 1998 is implemented. Only the initial order and rules could be made without Parliament's approval. They would in any case need to be approved by Parliament, as made clear by the amendments, within 40 days of being signed.

Mr. Hughes: That is entirely logical, but I cannot quite work out the maths. If we break, as we normally do, at the end of July and come back, as we normally do, in October, that means a gap of more than 40 days, even given the date of 2 October, when the Human Rights Act is implemented. Should not the amendments provide for a period longer than 40 days? I am not trying to make the Minister's case for her—I am happy to have a bridging period, but we must get it right.

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is right. However, I would not want to presume when the House will rise or reconvene. The hon. Gentleman's point is valid; I will check to make sure that the 40-day period is adequate, but the intention is quite clear in the amendments.
Amendment agreed to

Clause 18

OFFENCE FOR UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURES

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 21, line 44, leave out "authorized-" and insert—
'confined to a disclosure made to the Interception of Communications Commissioner or authorised—
( ) by thatCommissioner;'.—(Mr. Betts.]

Clause 21

OBTAINING AND DISCLOSING COMMUNICATIONS DATA

Mr. Heald: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 23, line 45, leave out from "health" to end of line 3 on page 24.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 58, in page 24, line 21, at end insert—
'( ) Communications data obtained on grounds falling within those specified in subsection (2) shall not be subsequently used or disclosed for any other purpose.'

Mr. Heald: The amendment deals with the purposes for which communications data may be obtained. Many


commentators in the industry and individuals who have contacted me have made the point that clause 21 is a wide provision-especially subsection (2)(h), which provides that the Secretary of State may specify any purpose for obtaining communications data and goes beyond what is reasonable or in the Government's interests.
Great concern has been expressed about the very wide terms of clause 21. It is believed that, when taken with clause 24(1)(f)—which provides that the Secretary of State can specify any public authority as designated for the purposes of obtaining communications data—any public authority could obtain communications data for any purpose. Such matters would obviously be subject to an element of scrutiny, but the uncertainty of the position has created concern, especially among City institutions. I do not believe that the Minister is uncertain about what he wants to achieve, so it seems a pity that he has not nailed his colours to the mast by saying what the purposes are, as he has done in clause 6, in which he has been prepared to list those who may apply for an interception warrant. Why not list the purposes without adding the catch-all?
Friendship tree technology exists today—one can learn a lot on these Bills, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If one has enough communications data, one can use that technology to find out in tremendous detail who communicates with whom. One can find out all sorts of interesting information about a person's life. It is an invasive form of investigation, not just a matter of finding out who telephoned whom and when, but of finding out in great detail about their internet communications and a range of other communications.
That is a valuable tool if used against a serious criminal, but the danger is that it will be used against others. If City institutions fear that they will be subject to it, there will come a point when we lose the benefits because the industry will not function effectively. Vodafone, one of the leading players in the field, has expressed concerns, saying that the underlying assumption is that communications data access represents a lesser intrusion into the rights of privacy than interception does. That is not necessarily true.
Verification is also a concern, as I have said before. Verification of a request for communications data is important, and the protections that we have already discussed must be provided. Finally, I cite again what Philip Virgo said in his e-mail, which was copied to the Minister. He wrote:
Most of the City institutions do not appear particularly concerned by the Human Rights issues. Their main concern is over the uncertainty as to who will have what rights of access to their data and communications and the risk of criminal access under guise of a warrant or via the law enforcement agencies themselves.
He also points out that all organisations have occasional bad apples—people who do not live up to the standards of the institution. That is as true of law enforcement authorities as it is of any other organisation, although one would hope that they would take great steps to avoid it. These things happen, and City institutions, in which secrecy and confidentiality of information is of the utmost importance, see giving information to the security forces or any law enforcement agency as a security risk.
We need proper protections. Saying that communications data may be obtained for any purpose that is specified by any public authority that the Minister chooses to designate simply is not good enough. We ask the Minister to think again.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Amendment No. 58 is linked with amendment No. 14, which was so well moved by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). He was right to point out the importance of communications data and the invasive nature of its collection, analysis and use—or misuse. I pay credit to the hon. Gentleman for what he said.
My probing amendment states that communications data
obtained on grounds falling within those specified in subsection (2) shall not be subsequently used or disclosed for any other purpose.
I want to explore the extent to which communications data collected for one purpose could subsequently be used for another. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister stated that such communications data cannot be used for other purposes, such as council tax and the collection of vehicle excise duty. I am not so sure about that—as I shall explain to the House.
Let us suppose that the police obtain communications data, subject to proper authorisation procedures, codes of practice and other notices required by the Bill. Under section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998, a disclosure from the police can be made if they are satisfied that the failure to disclose would prejudice
the collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature.
During the debates on that measure in 1998, it was held that that provision included council tax and vehicle excise duty.
If the police obtained communications data in accordance with chapter II, there would seem to be nothing to stop them—at a later stage—volunteering the data, by virtue of section 29 of the 1998 Act, for example, to local authorities for the collection of council tax, to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or, of course, for use by the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise. As far as I can see, that is lawful; it is permitted under section 29 of the Data Protection Act. If my interpretation of the law is wrong, I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me clearly, so that my concern can be put to rest.
What is more likely is that another Department will be able to exercise powers to demand communications data from the organisation that obtained them. For instance, I am sure that other legislation covering the operations of the Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security, the immigration authorities or Customs and Excise would permit a demand for such data. Indeed, under the previous Conservative Government, the immigration authorities required local authorities to provide them with such information.
I thus conclude that it is possible for communications data to be demanded for other purposes after its collection—if that is permitted by other legislation. However, if I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will state clearly that no other legislation would require such subsequent disclosure. If the Minister cannot provide that assurance, I must conclude that such further use is a possibility and is legal.
If I am correct, the authorisation process in chapter II would be irrelevant to the protection of privacy, because communications data could be volunteered to, or demanded by, other bodies at a later stage. An official could legitimately authorise collections of communications data and keep proper records only for them subsequently to be used for another purpose. If that is true, the relevant commissioner, who examined the authorisation process, would not know of such disclosures; nor would the telecommunications operator or the public. To put it bluntly, the whole authorisation process and all the protections afforded by chapter II could be reduced to a meaningless sham, because there would be no record of subsequent disclosures as part of the authorisation process.
That is an unacceptable prospect—hence my probing amendment. Its purpose is to stop any subsequent use that was not authorised at the time of the collection of the communications data.
In Committee, I expressed a difference of view with the Minister on communications data. He seemed to regard the matter as being not particularly important—certainly in respect of other forms of data and information collected. There is a danger that he and the Government are being too casual about communications data. There is potential for misuse and there should be proper controls.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) for raising this important subject and for giving us the opportunity to have a short and important debate on it.
I shall discuss the issues in the order that they were raised. Liberal Democrats are sympathetic to amendment No. 14, which was moved by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. It would remove the general additional justification for the acquisition of communications data.
As the hon. Gentleman spoke, I reflected on a thought that I have had before. It is generally accepted that the acquisition of data on patterns of communication can be as intrusive as the interception of the communication itself. For example, the interception of a letter or a telephone call might, in a sense, be no worse than someone knowing whom one phones and how often one does that. If that process is carried out illegitimately, it is a modern form of stalking. Someone's telecommunications movements can be followed in the same way as someone else's physical movements are followed. That can be equally threatening and oppressive.
The tracking of telecommunications movements can be carried out comprehensively. In one of my meetings with the police since becoming Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, I examined how they do that for the perfectly proper purpose of criminal investigation. They monitor dealings between persons A and B who might be plotting or arranging a meeting to hand over illegal goods or imported drugs. Every phone call and communication will be monitored. The methods used to get round the monitoring are becoming ever more imaginative, but technology continues to catch up. It is important that the police have the power to monitor communications, and that is why our general premise from the beginning was to support the Bill. However, not just the interception of

communications, but the management and control of that interception must be brought within the framework of legislation.
We welcome the proposal that data should be collected only if that is justified by the seven specific grounds in clause 21. We should not provide for the general and completely unqualified ground that is outlined in subsection (2)(h). It is worth noting that clause 5 does not give such a wide power to Secretaries of State or to those who grant warrants on the interception of data. Although it provides a more general provision to cover the protection of national security, the detection or protection of serious crime or to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, it qualifies that power. Subsection(3)(d) states:
for the purpose, in circumstances appearing to the Secretary of State to be equivalent to those in which he would issue a warrant by virtue of—
a crime prevention or detection provision—
giving effect to the provision of any international mutual assistance agreement.
Although that is a wide power, it is not unlimited in the same way as the power in clause 21.
On amendment No. 58, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, it is right, in principle, to make sure that information obtained, for example, for the prevention or detection of crime or in the interests of public safety should not be generally available so that it can be shipped from one agency to another. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were considered and cautious when he said that it was a probing amendment and it is worth raising the issue at this stage. However, if he and the House are not satisfied by the Minister's reply, we or the other place should consider returning to the subject later. It is important that there is a specific power that authorises the interception of communications only for a specific purpose. Once we have obtained information, we should not allow it to be passed around the system.
I have a question for the Minister about a matter that was not dealt with earlier. I am not aware that the various notices that can be applied for, and which we debated when we dealt with part III, are legally time limited and therefore automatically lapse after a certain period. That issue is related to the implications of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead. If we introduce a power to acquire information, we should not only prevent it from being used for any purpose but make sure that it is not given indefinitely and that there is a requirement to have it renewed.
Where in the Bill is there a provision to end the power given by a warrant or other measure? If there is no such provision, does not the Minister consider that we ought to amend the Bill to limit the duration of a power, in the same way that search warrants and other warrants obtained by the police are time limited?

Mr. Charles Clarke: Before I respond to specific points, I must comment on the quote from Philip Virgo given by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). Mr. Virgo's e-mail said:
On Thursday I attended a City event and had my ear bent as to why the debate on the RIP Bill was on the Civil Liberties issues with little/no mention of the threat to the UK position in international business-to-business e-business and the City Institutions and Large Multinationals who—


he claims—
are quietly moving…operations out of the UK to avoid being caught by the Bill.
I emphasise, as I have tried to do throughout these debates, that any perception that we are concerned only with civil rights issues, and not with e-commerce business issues, is wrong. We have sought to address a wide variety of issues with many contacts, including the European Informatics Market.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire quoted Mr. Virgo's statement that
Most of the City institutions do not appear particularly concerned by the Human Rights issues.
I do not agree. City institutions generally are concerned about human rights issues, and obviously have different views about how they should be addressed. I want to put on the record the fact that the Government do not accept Mr. Virgo's assessment, first, of the debate in general and, secondly, of the importance of human rights issues to commercial organisations.

Mr. Heald: The Minister will agree that throughout the proceedings on the Bill, there has been considerable discussion of the position of business and the way in which it is influenced—I have gone on about that a lot. Does the Minister have any evidence in connection with Mr. Virgo's point about companies leaving the UK?

Mr. Clarke: None at all. I have heard that assertion only from Mr. Virgo. It would be of concern if it were true, but we do not have evidence of that. Obviously, we consider issues of the overall commercial environment with colleagues from the Department of Trade and Industry. The reverse of the assertion is true: the regime that we are establishing will increasingly be seen as one that strengthens e-commerce, rather than weakens it, because it strengthens public confidence in the whole of e-commerce.
Amendment No. 14 is an attempt to restrict the purposes for which communications data may be required from eight to five. That matter was fully debated in Committee, but I am happy to restate the main reasons why we need to retain the three purposes in question. Clause 21(2)(f) includes the purpose
of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition,
and so on. That is a reflection of section 29(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998, and although not used extensively, it is currently used by agencies such as Customs and Excise to investigate the shadow economy.
An example of a situation in which such a provision is used is when flyers promising cheap cigarettes or tobacco, and giving a phone number to call, are pushed through letter boxes. An investigation at that early stage may very well not be a criminal investigation, but merely to ascertain whether the supplier had a tax liability. Another example is that of a tradesman who advertises in a newspaper, but is not VAT registered. If he earns enough to advertise, the chances are he is close to the VAT threshold and might have a tax liability, but an investigation would not necessarily be a criminal investigation.
The second purpose, set out in clause 21(2)(g), is that of
in an emergency…preventing death or injury or any damage to a person's physical or mental health.

In Committee, I gave an example of a case in which that might apply: a child telephones the emergency services to say that a parent has collapsed, but is unable to give the address. I agree that such cases do not often occur, but they are important. I emphasise that the whole purpose of the Bill is to extend the protection of the European convention on human rights.
The most serious of the three points relates to clause 21(2)(h), which contains the broadest framework, starting with the words "for any purpose". Although I accept that that provision means that new purposes could be added fairly easily, I should like to make two points. First, we are dealing with a new area of legislation and, despite all the effort that my colleagues and others have put into the Bill, we are still not absolutely certain that the existing purposes cover everything which may be required. It is possible that the purposes will have to be extended in future, especially if other Government Departments apply to be subject to those provisions, rather than relying on the Data Protection Act. However, I stress that the Government have absolutely no plans to do that at present. My second point should reassure anyone who believes that subsection (2) gives the Government a blank cheque. It does not, since any new purpose would, of course, be limited by article 8 of the European convention on human rights; that imposes a serious restriction.
If I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) or any other member of the Committee the impression that I do not consider communications data important, I did so inadvertently: I believe that such data are important. However, during our discussion in Committee of the hierarchy of intrusion of different forms of data collection—including someone standing in one's front room, someone listening to one's phone conversations and so on—I suggested that the collection of communications data is not as individually intrusive as some of the other forms of surveillance. I firmly believe that communications data are important, and if I gave the contrary impression in Committee, I correct it now.
The amendment would restrict the purposes for which communications data may be used or disclosed to purposes for which it may be required under the Bill. Although the Bill does not address that particular issue, we believe that to a large extent, the purpose of the amendment is met by the Data Protection Act. My hon. Friend made that point in Committee. Several of the data protection principles are relevant, especially the second principle, which is that
personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified purpose, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.
Processing includes using or disclosing. That clear principle offers protection.
I do not believe, therefore, that there is any need to add further restrictions on the use or disclosure of communications data, although I perceive the merit in explaining the relevant data protection principles in the code of practice to ensure the proper handling of communications data. The Government accept the principle that data should be used only for the specific purpose for which they are collected.
It is true that there is an exemption for national security under the Data Protection Act. However, each of the three security and intelligence agencies is bound by statutory


arrangements under the Security Service Act 1989 and Intelligence Services Act 1994. Those arrangements mean that they may not disclose material that they have obtained except for the purpose of properly discharging their functions, or for the purpose of criminal proceedings. I hope that I have now responded adequately to the points that were clearly made and well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, and that he draws comfort from my remarks.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about the question of time—an interesting and characteristically existential point. I have no detailed answer to offer, but I believe that we discussed that point in Committee when, if memory serves, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) raised it. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if he wants me to, but I believe that data are collected for a specific purpose, not for a specific period of time; the key question is what period of time is appropriate for that purpose. As I said, we debated the matter at length in Committee, and I shall not repeat what I said there on the hon. Gentleman's final point. I shall write to him further if my remarks have been misleading.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, stand to be corrected, especially in relation to part III and clause 47. I understand that there may still be an unanswered time question.
With regard to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), did the Minister say that the Data Protection Act 1998, rather than any code or subsidiary legislation, was clear about all such

RELEVANT PUBLIC AUTHORITIES DESIGNATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 27 AND 28


Public Authority
Directed Surveillance
Use of Covert Sources


Police forces, including:
✓
✓


British Transport Police
✓
✓


Ministry of Defence Police
✓
✓


Service Police
✓
✓


National Crime Squad
✓
✓


National Criminal Intelligence Service
✓
✓


HM Customs &Excise
✓
✓

matters? I would be troubled if it were suggested that something other than legislation were being prayed in aid as a higher authority than the Bill, which will become law.

Mr. Clarke: I believe that the Data Protection Act 1998 is clear. That is why I quoted the data protection principle established in it. I believe that it is compatible with other legislation, including the Bill. It is incumbent on us to explain the relevant data protection principles in the code of practice, to make them clear to everyone.
I hope that on that basis, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead will withdraw their amendments.

Mr. Heald: We are not entirely satisfied, but I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. The matter may be raised again in another place. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29

PERSONS ENTITLED TO GRANT AUTHORISATIONS UNDER ss. 27 AND 28

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 31, line 39, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) In subsection (1) "relevant public authority" means any of the organisations listed in Schedule (Relevant public authorities)
(4A) The Secretary of State may by order add any other public authority to Schedule (Relevant public authorities).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 40, 41, 65 and 45.
Amendment No. 5, in page 47, line 11, leave out Clause 44.
Government amendments Nos. 46 to 48 and 44.
New schedule 2—Public Authorities Designated for the Purposes of Sections 27 and 28—

Public Authority
Directed Surveillance
Use of Covert Sources


Security Service
✓
✓


Intelligence Services (Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ)
✓
✓


Ministry of Defence/Armed Forces
✓
✓


Home Office: Prison Service
✓



Immigration Service
✓
✓


Department of Social Security: Benefits Agency
✓



Inland Revenue
✓
✓


Department of Health: Medical Devices Agency
✓



Food Standards Agency
✓



Medicine Control Agency
✓



High Security Hospitals
✓



NHS Estates
✓



NHS Fraud
✓



Royal Pharmaceutical Society
✓



Department of Trade and Industry: Radio Communications Agency
✓



Export Services Directorate
✓



Post Office
✓



Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: Transport Security (Transec)
✓



Vehicle Inspectorate
✓
✓

Mr. Maclean: Amendment No. 59 attempts to put straightforward honesty and openness into clause 29, and to comply with the normal parliamentary conventions.
We had an interesting morning in Committee when we considered clause 29, which deals with persons entitled to grant authorisations under sections 27 and 28—the sections covering directed surveillance and covert surveillance. We were innocuously going through the clause, and when we reached the part that stated that the people with the power would belong to "relevant public authorities", we saw which public authorities were listed.
There were the big boys—the heavy players that we would expect to have powers of directed surveillance and covert surveillance. They are the same as those with which we had dealt earlier, which also have the power of

intrusive surveillance—police forces, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, the various intelligence agencies, the Ministry of Defence, any of Her Majesty's forces and, of course, the VAT man, the commissioners of Customs and Excise.
The clause went on to add:
any such public authority not falling within paragraphs (a) to (g) as may be specified for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State.
All my hon. Friends and I—and, I think, almost everyone in the Committee Room—assumed that the wording of that subsection, referring to any other public authority, was designed so that if the Secretary of State had missed out one little authority in the foregoing list, or if NCIS had changed its name, or the National Crime Squad had


amalgamated with NCIS, as may be on the cards, or there were some other changes, he could use that order-making power to redesignate one of the big criminal investigation agencies listed in the Bill. That is the normal purpose that we expected, and the normal procedure in legislation.
Perhaps by a little accident, more information began to be revealed. I asked the Minister to reassure me that the sandwich police at the Department of Health would not have those powers. We were all rather amazed when the Minister briefly said that the sandwich police at the Department of Health would indeed have powers of directed surveillance and the use of covert sources.
It was a Thursday morning, and you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how bad Thursday mornings are for maximum performance. However, at that point many of us began to wake up and realise that there might be more to the apparently innocuous little clause than met the eye.
We asked the Minister to reassure us that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food vets, and the inspectors who count my farmers' sheep, would not be included under the same clause as the National Criminal Intelligence Service, MI5, MI6 and the big boys. The Minister was forced to tell us that MAFF inspectors were included. We had a long debate in Committee as we tried to tease out what was going on in subsection (4)(h).
There seems to be a breach of normal parliamentary convention. It is acceptable for the Government to include an order-making power in the Bill if the Secretary of State has not decided what the orders will be, or if he knows that he will have to make an order at some future date, but the subject is not yet certain. However, the Government know exactly what they want to cover. The Minister, in his usual courteous and helpful way, followed up the debate in Committee with a letter.
New schedule 2 contains the substance of the letter. At the beginning of it, the Minister mentioned the organisations listed in the clause, including the National Crime Squad, the intelligence services and so on. He mentioned two other Home Office agencies—the Prison Service and the immigration service. He also listed the Department of Social Security, the Inland Revenue and seven different organisations in the Department of Health that required powers of directed surveillance. The latter included one organisation—the welfare foods section—that I omitted from new schedule 2 because it does not need such powers. I should like to hear the Minister's justification for its inclusion.
The list also includes the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, three organisations in the Department of Trade and Industry, three organisations in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and nine organisations in MAFF. We can understand the need to include the Meat Hygiene Service. I used to run the Pesticides Safety Directorate; I therefore understand the reasons for its inclusion. However, my list omits the egg inspectorate. Irrespective of the powers that MAFF, in its wisdom, believes that it needs, the egg inspectorate should not be listed in the same clause as MI5, MI6 and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. I am sure that Edwina Currie would have reached the same conclusion.
Other organisations in MAFF, too, have the power of directed surveillance, and want the Secretary of State to make an order. The Intervention Board for agricultural produce wants that power. The Health and Safety Executive, the Serious Fraud Office, the Financial

Services Authority, and various local authorities as defined in the Local Government Act 1999, are also on the Minister's list.
Thirty-two other agencies of Departments want to be included in subsection (4)(h). The clause currently includes the big boys—that is the best collective name for the police force, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the security services. As soon as we pass the clause that lists them, the Secretary of State will place an order before the House that lists 32 other agencies of Departments, which want the same power as the six big boys.
Why play the game of listing some organisations in the Bill and including the others through order-making procedures? The Government know which organisations they are. The Government claim that they already use the powers for which the clause provides. I accept that the egg inspectorate does not wish to take new, draconian powers. It apparently already has the power to undertake directed surveillance. I was never in charge of the egg inspectorate, so I never used those powers. I used others, but not those.
I appreciate that some of those departments need such powers. They can all probably make a valid argument for having them; it is legitimate to exercise the powers for directed and covert surveillance involving the lion mark for eggs, meat hygiene and all the other valid subjects. I could easily deal with the funny ones, but many important matters are involved, such as serious fraud, veterinary and human medicines and so on. It is legitimate to exercise those powers now and it was apparently legitimate to have them under previous Governments, so let us not be too embarrassed about including them in a schedule.
We should not pretend that under clause 29, only important state agencies such as the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, the police, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ will be given the power to undertake directed and covert surveillance. The Government should have the guts to say that in addition, there are good reasons why other organisations, including the Department of Social Security, the NHS fraud office, NHS Estates, Rampton and Broadmoor high security hospitals, the Radiocommunications Agency, the coal health claims unit, the Environment Agency and the Vehicle Inspectorate should have those powers.
The Government intend to list those bodies. They and the Minister, very decently, have published the list, so let us put it in a schedule and make a clean breast of it. My amendment, which may not be perfectly technically correct, states that the Home Secretary may add more bodies or another Department that is discovered to need such powers. I pay tribute to the Minister for writing to all Departments and trying to winkle them out. They have all been using those powers since the year dot—the coal health claims unit since the last century but one, no doubt. He has tried to pull them together into a comprehensive whole, and has winkled out from them the powers that they have and those that they think they must continue to have.
It would be helpful if those bodies were included in a schedule, together with a power to add others as and when the Home Secretary concludes that another inspectorate of the department of little widgets and big sausages requires such powers as well. There would be no harm in


that, as that is how we normally do things in this place. If the Government have a list of organisations that require a certain power, we usually include them in a schedule. We do not want to put them in a clause, as that would require changes to be made should the Home Secretary need to add other bodies.
We know, and the Government know, what they will do the second the Bill is passed. Let us be absolutely honest and up-front. One can mock the egg inspectorate of MAFF. No doubt next week I shall receive a briefing note stating why it must have such draconian powers to inspect our sunny-side-ups. Although it is legitimate to have the powers, if the Minister defends them at the Dispatch Box, as I hope he will, let him say that they will be included in a schedule, both so that everyone can see what they are and why bodies have them, and so that they can be amended easily if necessary.

Mr. Heald: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who put his case with his customary lucidity and succinctness, by saying that the Minister must answer.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) does the House a service by referring to an issue with which we have dealt three times this year in Home Office legislation. A similar matter arose when we considered the Freedom of Information Bill, which ended up including pages of organisations because someone believed that it was important to set out who was governed by the provisions. When the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill was considered in Committee, the Government were persuaded to include a general duty to promote good race relations, although they decided that it would be useful to include a schedule of public authorities that would be governed by it. The right hon. Gentleman makes the case very well as to which authorities, at least at the starting point of the legislation, are to be governed by the provisions. They know, we know and everyone else knows who they are, but the Government must justify putting them on the list, and if they are embarrassed perhaps that is a reason for particular organisations' being removed from the list. I hope that the Government will respond positively on that.
9.45 pm
Government amendments Nos. 46 and 47 are a partial answer to our amendment No. 5, which is to bring to the House's attention the need to get rid of what could reasonably be called a Henry VIII clause—the catch-all provision allowing Ministers to do pretty well anything under part II.
Earlier I owned up to the fact that, having not been on the Committee, I had not followed all the twists and turns of the debate. Part II sets out different procedures for directed surveillance, intrusive surveillance and covert human intelligence. The purpose of the Bill is rightfully to bring new forms of surveillance under the Human Rights Act 1998 and legislation before Parliament.
Clause 44 allows the Secretary of State by order to shift the rules that apply to directed surveillance and suddenly to apply them to intrusive surveillance. Rules that at one

moment apply to surveillance that is not defined as directive or intrusive will be applied to surveillance that is so defined.
My understanding from people who know about these matters is that the boundaries are shifting, and it is illogical to believe that it is right in legislation tightly to categorise directed or covert surveillance. A person who taps in to someone's online bank account may be involved both in covert surveillance and, in almost the same exercise, in intrusive surveillance. It may be better to be honest and say that the categories are wrong. It may be that having different rules and procedures for different types of surveillance covered by part II is an over-prescriptive approach.
We are grateful for Government amendments Nos. 46 and 47, which take out clause 44(1)(c) and thus reduce the number of alternatives to three. In our view, it would be far better to remove clause 44 altogether. Even better than that, we should think again about how we subdivide the different forms of surveillance in part II. Surveillance must be included—we are not arguing against that proposition—but technology will make the boundaries much less rigid, so we are taking the wrong approach.
The issue from the citizen's point of view is not the form of the communication that is being watched, but the fact that they are the subject of that intrusion into their privacy. A more citizen-centred definition and approach in the legislation that took account of circumstances in which the citizen's rights to privacy could be infracted might be better than approaching the law by type of intrusion. I hope that the Minister can be positive on the general case, as well as on the specific amendment to clause 44.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I commend the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for the entertaining and powerful way in which he put his case, as he did in Committee, although I did not concede the existence of the sandwich police in the royal parks. He put his case wittily and effectively.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that we have been open about the public authorities that are likely to use these powers. We are not trying to hide the details; indeed, we believe that there has been a great benefit in publicly identifying the public authorities that use covert investigative techniques and ensuring that their use is properly regulated and controlled, with the same standards applied across the different authorities.
Let me remind the House of the two key purposes of this part of the Bill. We acknowledge that we are simply considering the powers that currently exist—the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to acknowledge that, too. It is for other legislation, and for other consideration, to determine whether the powers should or should not exist for each of the agencies, and there is an argument to be had in relation to any of them, whether they involve eggs, ice cream or anything else. Where they exist, however, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that they are covered and are compatible with the European convention on human rights. In the Bill, we are taking a step to bring into the public arena what was not in it previously, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us credit for that.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not unsympathetic to the idea of a schedule, although—as he acknowledged—the proposed schedule is defective,


because it does not include all the public authorities that have to date indicated their wish to continue their use of these techniques. The right hon. Gentleman explained why he had removed some of them. I was not aware that he had such an antipathy to Edwina Currie, but I am interested to discover yet another split within the Conservative party.
Although I will give further consideration to naming the public authorities in a schedule, I am not in a position to do so now, because—this is within the parliamentary convention referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—we are currently discussing with our colleagues in Scotland which functions of the named authorities are reserved and which are devolved. Depending on the outcome of those discussions, the use of the powers by some authorities in Scotland may need to be covered by a Bill to be introduced shortly in the Scottish Parliament. That would affect the shape and content of any schedule or order provided for in this Bill.
I will, however, give the right hon. Gentleman a commitment now. We are seeking agreement with the Scots over the period of the Bill's passage in order to publish a schedule of the type that the right hon. Gentleman wants, because we think that the reasons he has given are powerful. I cannot promise him that we will secure agreement with the Scottish Parliament in time, but we positively seek to do so, both in order to resolve matters and in order to provide information in the form that he recommends. It is not an easy process, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being generous enough to acknowledge the work that has gone on in my Department—a Department with which he is familiar—to secure an understanding throughout Whitehall of what is happening, and the progress that is being made. Although, as I say, the process is not easy, it has already brought a lot of information into the public arena—but we are committed to bringing yet more into that arena. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing his amendment on the basis of my assurance.
None of us knows how the courts will respond to challenges made under the Human Rights Act after October. After lengthy consideration and discussions with the police and others, we have come up with definitions of surveillance that we believe will satisfy the requirements of the convention, but, as was said earlier, it remains the case that the courts may decide that we have got the balance wrong. Clause 44 will allow us to make certain changes to the provisions, with Parliament's agreement, if we have got it wrong. It will, for example, enable something that we currently consider to be directed surveillance to be treated as intrusive surveillance; or, if we need to take account of future technological advances, it will enable us to provide that part II can apply to an activity that is currently not mentioned.
However, we noted the concerns raised in Committee, and therefore agreed to remove the provision allowing redesignation to take place. The clause will now only allow for a strengthening of the provisions, so that activities not currently covered can be covered, and directed surveillance can be redesignated intrusive surveillance. I hope that Members will agree that our amendments strengthen the existing provisions, and will not press amendment No. 5 to a Division.
Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 44 would allow the necessary orders and rules to be made by the Secretary of State. Clause 39 provides the Secretary of State with an

order-making power to allow public authorities not currently named to apply for an authorisation. It seems right that we should make that change, which is proposed in amendments Nos. 45 and 48.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Minister for his customarily courteous speech, and for acknowledging that there is some merit in the amendment and new schedule. Although it was easy to make fun of the egg inspectorate of MAFF, I was concerned that the Minister might conclude that the substance of my remarks was just a yolk, so to speak. It was not. I was going to say that, if the hon. Gentleman could not accept the new schedule tonight, by the time the Bill went to the other place, their lordships might conclude that clause 29 was rather a scrambled mess, might be more hard boiled than we are in this place and might insist that something be done—although I think that I should desist from that line of argument.
I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that he is willing in principle to go down the route on to which I have tried to force him. I appreciate the difficulty that he is in. I know how difficult it is to deal with the Scots. He has my complete sympathy in that regard. I only hope that, by the time the Bill gets to the other place, progress will have been made in sensitive discussions with the Scots and the Scottish Parliament, so that he is able to set the provision out in schedule form. Otherwise, I suspect that their lordships will wish to force his hand and do that in any case, although I am grateful for his comments. I therefore have no hesitation in saying that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining Government amendments agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Betts.]
Question agreed to.

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Clarke: The Bill is a major advance for the United Kingdom's legislative system. It advances coverage of the European convention on human rights to a range of activities conducted by the state. It is important to ensure that we are able to update our actions in relation both to human rights and to technological processes. The Bill gives citizens rights that they have never had before in relation to surveillance by the state. It gives me great pleasure to move Third Reading, to which I hope that the House will agree.

Mr. Heald: I beg to move,
That this House, whilst agreeing with the Government's intention to provide and regulate investigatory powers, declines to give a Third Reading to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, because it fails to give crimefighters the powers they need, imposes unspecified and potentially costly burdens on Internet service providers without adequate protection against over-regulation and creates an offence repugnant to justice.
At the outset, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made it clear that the Opposition were concerned about many of the Bill's aspects, but agreed with the principle that crime fighters should have the powers that they need to investigate crime. Concessions have been made on the Bill, but they are not good enough. That is why we have tabled our reasoned amendment.
The concessions are not good enough because the powers that the Bill makes available to the crime-fighting authorities are inadequate; the Benefits Agency will not be able to intercept in serious cases of benefit fraud, the penalty provided in clause 49, when there is a failure to provide a key needed to decode information, is only two years, whereas it should be 10; and the Government's failure to agree in Committee with our proposal for a power of search, as requested by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, has ensured that the powers being made available are inadequate.
The Bill provides for over-regulation, but not for adequate protections. Industry is saying that, if it is to be required to have an intercept capability that it agrees with, there should be clarity about what is proposed. Individual companies should have a right of independent scrutiny of such a proposal. We have therefore suggested a technical approval board, a right of appeal, a review and many other measures that would give confidence to the internet service provider industry. All those issues affect confidence.
As we have heard in our debates today, internet service provider companies are already tip-toeing offshore to avoid those liabilities. There is uncertainty about the possible bill of more than £30 million for the provision. Additionally, the role of consumers has been ignored. They believe that they own the internet, and they want the confidence of knowing that the internet will not be over-regulated and that their every conversation will not be overheard.
The offence provided in clause 49 has been described by an eminent barrister as a "repugnant" offence, which requires a person to prove his innocence and carries a penalty of two years' imprisonment. We say that any penalty is wrong if an offence is unjust—if it breaches the golden thread of justice that means that a person is innocent until proven guilty. In the United Kingdom, one should not have to prove one's innocence. That long-standing principle has served this country well for hundreds of years, and it should be upheld.
The Bill is improved—it is getting better—but it is not good enough. It is not good enough for the authorities who are desperately trying to fight against crime, drug traffickers, paedophiles and money launderers. It is not good enough for the businesses in the new economy that are afraid of over-regulation. It is not good enough for the ordinary citizen, who may be faced with having to prove his or her innocence—something that an Englishman or woman should not have to do.

Mr. Cohen: I shall not detain the House too long. I congratulate the two Ministers on the courteous way in which they have presented the Bill and on the carefully argued case that they have made in the House and in Committee. However, I still think that the Bill raises some concerns.
Last month, the Government announced that £22 billion had been raised from sale of the next generation of mobile communications licences. Part I, chapter II permits every one of those new-style connections—internet as well as mobile phone—to be monitored by 1,000 or so self-authorising officials.
The Government have said that they want an often illiterate generation, produced by the previous Government's policies, to become the e-literate generation, adept at using the internet. Under the Bill, details of every website visited can be collected by hundreds of diverse bodies, including 400-plus local authorities and 50 police forces. They can use the powers under chapter II and have two authorising officers each.
Of course, the police and MI5 face challenges and the Bill rightly helps them, but I am not sure that it is appropriate to put on the same level bodies such as the egg inspectorate, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society or NHS Estates. The Bill is too widely cast. It is not far short of outrageous that officials can authorise themselves to obtain communications data, without an effective check on the exercise of such powers.
The Government appointed a Data Protection Commissioner to protect privacy. In this important area, the Bill gives the commissioner no explicit role. She is not even a relevant commissioner. Her briefing on the Bill was scathing, effectively saying that the Government were taking too casual an approach to the protection of individual privacy.
An article in The New York Times only last week pointed out that the United States was moving towards much stronger protection of personal data. It said:
President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore have detected the growing political appeal of personal privacy in a time of data rape.
It said that Clinton planned
to get on with legislation to stem the tide of snooping.
The Bill has lost an opportunity to do that, and it should be stronger on the protection of individual privacy, to balance the overall emphasis on helping MI5. There is to be a code of practice in association with the Bill. The balance must be restored by making that code a strong one.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Bill first came to us on Second Reading just two months ago, and the House registered then how important it was. The Liberal Democrats took the view that, although it had some defects, it was necessary to ensure that if, with the development of technology, communication was intercepted or data about communication were collected, that should be covered by the law. That remains our view.
Many of the large number of Government amendments showed that the Government have listened and moved. In many cases, they listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam


(Mr. Allan), who cannot be here tonight, but to whom I pay tribute. Many of their arguments, and those of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and his colleagues, have been accepted. We welcome the improvements, and the Bill is unarguably better than it was following Second Reading.
I pay tribute to those outside the House who have helped: Justice, Liberty, and especially Mr. Caspar Bowden from the Foundation for Information Policy Research.
We must decide whether the concerns of constituents and business people have been sufficiently accommodated so that we can accept the Bill. The Conservative party suggests that the Bill has such defects that we should refuse to give it a Third Reading. We do not agree. The Conservatives give three reasons. First, they say that the Bill does not give crime fighters the powers that they need, but the Bill in fact contains adequate powers. The Conservatives tabled new clause 1 and we tabled new clause 7, as alternatives to part III, but the Conservatives' proposal of a 10-year prison sentence option across the board was wrong and their additional powers were therefore inappropriate.
Secondly, the Conservatives argue that the Bill
imposes unspecified and potentially costly burdens on Internet service providers.
However, we believe that an accommodation can be reached. We have not yet received full assurance on the point, but we have received some assurance that costs will be met. We hope that the Government will go further in the other place. Thirdly, the Conservatives argue that the Bill
creates an offence repugnant to justice.
We share their view that the reversal of the burden of proof in clauses 46 to 49 is wrong. However, it was noticeable that, when the same provision was before the House on Third Reading of the Terrorism Bill, the Conservative party did not make the same objection. If it thinks that the reversal of the burden of proof is wrong, it must argue that consistently and not be selective.
We are consoled by two thoughts as we support Third Reading. First, the other place will seek to amend it, and we may have to rely on the issue of the burden of proof being corrected there. The House of Lords may again have to come to the rescue of the defendant against the state. Secondly, from 2 October, the European convention on human rights will be part of our law. It is unfortunate that the Government are leaving the parts of the Bill that we think go too far to be struck down under the convention and it would be better if the Bill were right without having to be challenged in the courts. However, if the Bill goes beyond the powers that the state should have, the courts will find in favour of the citizen.
The Bill is necessary. It is not perfect yet, but it is improved. We hope that the Lords will take the signals from this place and correct the one remaining significant objection—to part III—that we still have to the Bill.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I begin by paying tribute to those who participated in tonight's debate and in Committee, to the Clerks and everybody who serviced the Committee during the course of the Bill, to my officials, and to the wide range of organisations that commented

constructively on the Bill. It is important to acknowledge, as everybody concerned has done, that we have had a wide and open debate. That is in the best traditions of the House.
I understand the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), but they have previously been debated. His point about the need for a strong code of practice is taken, and I hope that he feels that the points that he raises have been given a full airing, both in Committee and on Report.
I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his colleagues have contributed to the debate. I am delighted that they have decided to support Third Reading, and I think that they have made the right decision. They have paid close attention to various specifics in the Bill and we have tried to respond to the serious way in which their comments were put by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in Committee. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is responding to us tonight by saying that we can work to improve the Bill together, because that is the right approach to enable us to extend human rights more generally.
I was, however, surprised and even shocked that the Opposition decided to table the reasoned amendment. I shall deal with the three specific points that it raises, but in reverse order.
The amendment states that the Bill creates an offence that is "repugnant to justice". A week or so ago, I met the barrister on whose opinion that element of the amendment was based, and I discussed in detail with him the matters involved. The word "repugnant" appears to have been taken from the divisional court judgment in the Kebilene case, which then went to the House of Lords.
However, when the House of Lords considered the case, it did not find the offence to be repugnant. Lord Hope said:
A sound judgment as to whether the burden which he has to discharge is an unreasonable one is unlikely to he possible until the facts are known.
The Lords did not accept that the offence was repugnant, and to suggest otherwise is both offensive and wrong.
The second contention in the amendment is that the Bill
imposes unspecified and potentially costly burdens on Internet service providers
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) should concede that the Government have given a great deal of information about the costs involved. Substantial discussions have been held with the industry. We acknowledge that the industry has genuine concerns, which we have debated fully. We have been detailed about the costs involved, and we have set out the position very clearly.
The amendment claims that the Bill fails to give crime fighters the powers that they need. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the need to deal with paedophiles, drug dealers, cyber crime and fraud. For that, we need the powers in the Bill, and they must be properly established and subject to the European convention on human rights.
The reasoned amendment would deprive the Bill of the Third Reading that it needs. As a result, when the ECHR comes into force on 2 October, many of the strategies used by law enforcement agencies to prosecute international paedophiles, drug rings, cyber crime gangs


and fraudulent organisations will have to be suspended because no legal framework in which they can operate will exist.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party will regret opposing Third Reading. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) correctly said on Second Reading, the Bill is needed to ensure that law enforcement has the powers necessary to fight international crime and to ensure that our citizens are properly protected.
That is why I am shocked that the Opposition should have decided to oppose Third Reading. I believe that they will come to regret it, and I urge the House to turn their amendment down.

Mr. Heald: The powers in the Bill are inadequate, and will overburden business and industry. The Bill is unsatisfactory and not good enough, and we intend to push the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 330.

Division No. 183]
[10.17 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Flight, Howard


Amess, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Fox, Dr Liam


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fraser, Christopher


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Garnier, Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gibb, Nick


Baldry, Tony
Gill, Christopher


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Gray, James


Bercow, John
Green, Damian


Beresford, Sir Paul
Greenway, John


Blunt, Crispin
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
Hague, Rt Hon William


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hammond, Philip


Brady, Graham
Hawkins, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Heald, Oliver


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Burns, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Jenkin, Bernard



Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher


Clappison, James
Key, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor



Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Lansley, Andrew


Collins, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Letwin, Oliver


Cran, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Lidington, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Day, Stephen
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Duncan Smith, Iain
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Evans, Nigel
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Faber, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fabricant, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Madel, Sir David




Major, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malins, Humfrey
Steen, Anthony


Maples, John
Streeter, Gary


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Swayne, Desmond


May, Mrs Theresa
Syms, Robert


Moss, Malcolm
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher &Walton)


Norman, Archie
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Page, Richard
Townend, John


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Paterson, Owen
Trend, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Tyrie, Andrew


Prior, David
Viggers, Peter


Randall, John
Waterson, Nigel


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Robathan, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Robertson, Laurence
Whittingdale, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Wilkinson, John


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Willetts, David


Ruffley, David
Wilshire, David


St Aubyn, Nick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shepherd, Richard


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Spicer, Sir Michael
and


Spring, Richard
Mr. Peter Luff.



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caplin, Ivor


Allen, Graham
Cawsey, Ian


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Chaytor, David


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Chidgey, David


Ashton, Joe


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clapham, Michael


Atkins, Charlotte
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Austin, John
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Banks, Tony
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Battle, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Clelland, David


Beard, Nigel
Clwyd, Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coaker, Vernon


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cohen, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Coleman Iain


Bennett, Andrew F
Colman, Tony


Benton, Joe


Bermingham, Gerald
Connarty, Michael


Berry, Roger
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Best, Harold
Corbett, Robin


Betts, Clive
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blears, Ms Hazel
Corston, Jean


Blizzard, Bob
Cotter, Brian


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cox, Tom


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Crausby, David


Bradshaw, Ben
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Breed, Colin
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Cummings, John


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)



Browne, Desmond
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Burden, Richard
Dalyell, Tam


Burgon, Colin
Darvill, Keith


Burnett, John
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Burstow, Paul
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davidson, Ian





Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry(B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dismore, Andrew
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Donohoe, Brian H
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Doran, Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Drew, David
Khabra, Piara S


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kidney, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Edwards, Huw
Kirkwood, Archy


Efford, Clive
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ennis, Jeff
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Etherington, Bill
Laxton, Bob


Fearn, Ronnie
Lepper, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Levitt, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Flynn, Paul
Linton, Martin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Livsey, Richard


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lock, David


Foulkes, George
McAvoy, Thomas


Fyfe, Maria
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gapes, Mike
McDonagh, Siobhain


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McDonnell, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McIsaac, Shona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McNamara, Kevin


Godman, Dr Norman A
McNulty, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
MacShane, Denis


Goggins, Paul
Mactaggart, Fiona


Golding, Mrs Llin
McWalter, Tony


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McWilliam, John


Gorrie, Donald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Martlew, Eric


Hanson, David
Maxton, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Healey, John
Meale, Alan


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Austin


Hesford, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Hill, Keith
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoey, Kate
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hood, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Hope, Phil
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hopkins, Kelvin


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mountford, Kali


Howells, Dr Kim
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mudie, George


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mullin, Chris


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hurst, Alan
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hutton, John
Norris, Dan


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Illsley, Eric
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Neill, Martin


Jamieson, David
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jenkins, Brian
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Palmer, Dr Nick




Pearson, Ian
Stevenson, George


Perham, Ms Linda
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pickthall, Colin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pike, Peter L
Stinchcombe, Paul


Plaskitt, James
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pollard, Kerry
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pond, Chris
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pope, Greg
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stunell, Andrew


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Purchase, Ken
Temple-Morris, Peter


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Quinn, Lawrie
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Timms, Stephen


Rammell, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


Raynsford, Nick
Todd, Mark


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Touhig, Don


Rendel, David
Trickett, Jon


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Truswell, Paul


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruddock, Joan
Tyler, Paul


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tynan, Bill


Ryan, Ms Joan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Salter, Martin
Ward, Ms Claire


Sanders, Adrian
Wareing, Robert N


Sarwar, Mohammad
Watts, David


Sawford, Phil
Webb, Steve


Sedgemore, Brian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sheerman, Barry
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Singh, Marsha


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Willis, Phil


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Winnick, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Worthington, Tony


Snape, Peter
Wray, James


Soley, Clive
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Spellar, John


Squire, Ms Rachel
Tellers for the Noes:


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Steinberg, Gerry
Mrs. Anne McGuire.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY

That the draft Development Commission (Dissolution) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 12th April, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Question agreed to.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That Mr. John Hayes be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee, and Mr. Patrick Nicholls be added to the Committee.[Mr. McWilliam.]

Assisted Area Status (Burnley, Hyndburn and Rossendale)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I have pleasure in initiating a debate on an important issue for Burnley, Hyndburn and Rossendale. Before I begin my speech, it would be wrong of me not to record my congratulations to Burnley football club on securing automatic promotion last Saturday. I say that in all seriousness; the issue is important not only for the club, but for Burnley, because it boosts morale. It is incredible how much production rises in local industry when Burnley football club does well.
Last Friday, I opened the Northbridge conference centre at Elm street in Burnley. It is in a building that was occupied by Lucas several years ago. Lucas moved out when it relocated, and the building has undergone several alterations. The refurbishment is incredible—an area of derelict houses opposite the building has been cleared, a new car park is being built and landscaping is being carried out.
That work was made possible by help from various Government programmes over the years—objective 2, assisted area status or urban development. Indeed, in a short speech at the opening ceremony, the owners of the building referred to the grants that had enabled the work to be undertaken.
My speech is about three areas because we are making a joint submission. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) is in the Chamber and the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), will enter the Chamber any minute now. Both of them are precluded by their membership of the Government from speaking in the debate, but they very much support the case that I shall make in my speech.
My right hon. Friend the Minister saw us on 18 April, and I am very grateful for that. He is an old friend of mine; we both came into the House in 1983. We are grateful for the way in which he has listened to our case, but it is important to make the case publicly in the Chamber to show that we are doing everything possible to ensure that assisted area status is given to the three authorities. My right hon. Friend wrote to us on 19 April, and I shall refer to that letter later in the debate.
Burnley, Hyndburn and Rossendale were included in the revised map that was agreed by the Government last July and that was put forward as the new map of assisted area status. We welcomed that at the time and we thought that the Government had done an excellent job in putting wards together. They put together areas of deprivation and those that met the requirements of the assisted area scheme. They also did a good job in enabling as many local authorities as possible to use the resources available.
Unfortunately, that proved to be a false dawn and the European Union—there was a change in the Commission—was not willing to agree to the proposals. It was a major blow when it was announced on 10 April that the map would be changed yet again.
A letter of 10 April from my right hon. Friend the Minister said:
In the light of those discussions, the Government today announced that it intends to submit an amended set of proposals for the new Assisted Areas. The enclosed booklet sets out the details.
He said that there would be a three-week period of consultation, but he added:
I regret that the new proposals do not maintain the level of Tier 2 coverage in your constituency. We will, however, ensure that SMEs continue to have access to the DTI's Enterprise Grant Scheme.
That news was a major blow to us; it was a real shock and totally unexpected at that stage.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen has now arrived. She was obviously delayed by the vote that has just taken place.
On 14 April, the North West regional development agency issued a press release that suggested that its board supported the case for east Lancashire to be reconsidered for assisted area status. It said that
board member, Kath Reade, supported by Dennis Mendoros, led the call for the agency to help restore Assisted Area to East Lancashire.
Mrs Reade said, "East Lancashire has been dealt two body blows in quick succession. The loss of Objective 2 European funding and now the loss of a Assisted Area status is nonsensical in an area of obvious need. I want the Northwest Development Agency to use as much influence as possible to change this decision. We must be able to support our manufacturing base in East Lancashire.
Rossendale council has written a detailed letter to the Government office of the north-west and it has made a strong case. Among other things, it says:
This decision has caused great dismay and anger here in Rossendale and the Council ask that the Government reviews the decision especially in the light of the current economic situation facing the Borough and agrees to at least re-instate the above wards if not accept the case for the inclusion of the whole of Rossendale on the new map.
It points out:
Over the past 12 months (February 1999–February 2000) unemployment in Rossendale has increased by 1.7 per cent. compared with a decrease of 10.7 per cent. nationally. This has been caused by the high level of closures and redundancies throughout 1999 and is a very worrying trend.
Burnley borough council writes:
At the beginning of 2000, unemployment in Burnley stood at 3.5 per cent., or 1,435 people … If the 800 redundancies which have been announced in Burnley since the start of the year "feed through" into the unemployment statistics, Burnley's unemployment rate will increase to around 5.5 per cent. (a 57 per cent. increase), and will stand some 34 per cent. higher then the national unemployment rate
as it was in March 2000. It adds:
It is worth re-iterating that it is the worsening of the position locally since the original East Lancashire case was submitted in October 1998 which gives … cause for concern.
Burnley had a strong case when it was considered in October 1998. However, every factor on which the proposal was considered has worsened since the proposal was made.
Burnley council continues:
There have been further declines in the figures for "Gross Value Added" since October 1998, and also for "Net Capital Expenditure Per Head in Manufacturing".
The new index of local deprivation, which will be published in June, will show that all boroughs in east Lancashire, including Pendle, are in a much worse position. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is also here to support my case.
East Lancashire Partnership sent a letter, dated 5 May, to all Lancashire Members, saying that it hopes we will
support the case for East Lancashire as the loss of Tier 2 Status will have a negative impact on our manufacturing industries and will limit our ability to restructure our economic base to make it more competitive.
In a letter to the Minister, the North West regional development agency, the north-west regional assembly and East Lancashire Partnership made the point that their case is supported not only by east Lancashire but by the region. It said:
Our case sets out our joint understanding and commitment to the inclusion of Assisted Area coverage for Wards within East Lancashire as part of North West regional Assisted Area coverage and the regional prioritisation of these areas as part of that represented by the Government on behalf of English regions.
This is not only a local case, supported, rightly, by vested interests such as those in Burnley, Hyndburn and Rossendale, but one with the full backing of the north-west regional assembly and development agency. They believe that there is a strong case for the change in the present map, which has been put out to consultation. The closing date for responses was last Tuesday.
The original case that was made to the Government was based on structural decline, low gross average earnings and low pay, business registrations and survival rates, unemployment and the 1998 index of local deprivation. On structural decline, it can clearly be demonstrated that the east Lancashire economy has become increasingly vulnerable and continues to under-perform compared with the rest of the UK.
On gross average earnings, wages in east Lancashire are 14 per cent. lower than the national average. In manufacturing, wages are 13 per cent. lower than the national average. Business registrations have fallen because of the economic climate. Unemployment is getting worse, and I mentioned that several redundancies had been announced in the past few months. In crude terms, east Lancashire has been a job deficit area for decades, and the situation has become acute over the years. The index of local deprivation supports our case.
As I said, the latest figures underline the fact that the position is getting worse. For Hyndburn, the gross value added at the time of the proposal's submission in October 1998 was 81 per cent. of the UK figure and the latest figures show a deterioration to 79 per cent. The figure for Rossendale has fallen from 74 per cent. of the UK figure to 73 per cent. In Burnley, the net capital expenditure per head in manufacturing was 68 per cent. of the UK figure at the time of the submission, but the latest figures show a fall to 65 per cent. In Rossendale, the figure was 62 per cent. of the UK figure, and has now fallen to 50 per cent.
Changes in international trade mean that TRW is moving work not to the European Union but to eastern Europe because of low wages there. Only last month, I secured an Adjournment debate on the redundancies that had been announced at TRW, which are a serious blow to the area. As I said, unemployment in Rossendale has increased by 1.7 per cent., and Burnley's unemployment rate is following that trend, as the 709 redundancies announced in March are added to February's unemployment total of 1,454.
Those are the problems that we face. On the index of deprivation, Hyndburn has moved from 76 to 43, Burnley from 65 to 50 and Rossendale from 107 to 65. Many areas


that have been included in the assisted area status map have far lower figures of deprivation than the three areas that I am talking about. The automotive industry is a major employer in our area. Many people depend on it for their job, so they are concerned about what will happen at Rover and Ford.
We need assisted area status if we are to develop industrial estates in our area. Shuttleworth Mead in Burnley has 30 acres remaining for development and the potential for 1,800 jobs; Network 65 in Burnley has 27.5 acres remaining for development and the potential for 1,500 jobs; 65 Central in Hyndburn has 86 acres remaining for development and the potential for 3,500 jobs; and Trans-International Park in Rossendale has 7.5 acres remaining for development and the potential for 400 jobs.
One of the points that I made to my right hon. Friend the Minister is that Burnley has 3,000 empty houses: poverty and deprivation are on the increase and people are moving away because there are no jobs. We have the will to tackle those problems, but we need Government assistance. Another problem is the European Commission's official confirmation of the closure of English Partnership's investment programme. It has been said that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions provides assistance, but if we do not get assisted area status it cannot help.
The conclusion of the submission states that the area is a nationally important manufacturing area, with a strong case for support based on poor economic performance and high levels of poverty and deprivation. At a time when the national economy is improving, conditions in the area have not improved—indeed, against many indicators, performance has worsened. Tier 2 status and access to regional selective assistance is vital to partners' attempts to tackle the deep-seated economic problems in east Lancashire. Without it, the already fragile economy will deteriorate even further than it has done since the original submission in October 1998, and the area's efforts to develop in the new economy will be seriously weakened.
In his letter, my right hon. Friend the Minister expressed a willingness to come to the area and meet representatives of the regional development agency and the Government office of the north-west. We hope that he will be able to do so soon, and that he will respond positively and so offer hope to Burnley, Hyndburn and Rossendale.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): Before I start to respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), I congratulate his local football team, Burnley, on making it into the first division. He will be able to join us at Bramall Lane, where my team, Sheffield United, plays. I do not know whether it is the great support for Burnley that got the team into the first division, or whether spin coming out of No. 10 is responsible—I know that one of the official spokesmen there is also a supporter. Whatever the reason, it is good to see Burnley back in the first division.
I commend my hon. Friend on the force of his argument. As he said, we entered Parliament at the same time, so I know that he has always been a strong advocate

of Burnley and East Lancashire as a whole, especially its manufacturing base. He speaks with great sincerity on the issues and he has made the case well tonight. The Government recognised the needs and concerns of the area in the proposals for the new assisted areas map published in July last year. We listened closely to the views of local and regional partners, including the regional development agencies, when drawing up those proposals.
I know that my hon. Friend and his constituents share my disappointment that we have been unable to secure Commission approval for those proposals, but I can assure him that we fought hard to secure our July proposals, including all those for east Lancashire, and we are not amending those proposals lightly. The amendments that we announced last month, which have been the subject of a three-week consultation period, were made solely to meet the European Commission's concerns about our July proposals.
My hon. Friend may find it helpful if I set out the Commission's concerns and what we have had to do to meet them. The Commission thought that the approach to the July proposals, which reflected earlier public consultation and dialogue with regional and local partners, would have given the United Kingdom an unfair advantage over other member states of the European Union.
The proposals, the Commission believed, allowed the UK to include industrial locations within the assisted areas, while excluding the population of surrounding areas that might benefit from the regional assistance given to such industry. With our population ceiling, that would have allowed the UK greater scope for supporting industry in competition with our European partners.
To meet the concern that the July proposals would give the UK an unfair advantage, the Commission required that our proposed assisted areas be more compact and self-contained. It also required us to reduce the population coverage of our proposed assisted areas by a third of a million people.
The changes have had an impact on our proposals in east Lancashire. We could not, as we did under the July proposals, extend coverage in a strip from Blackburn to Burnley, Rossendale and Hyndburn. The areas proposed in July were not sufficiently compact to secure Commission approval. Under the new constraints imposed by the Commission, we would have had to include the whole of east Lancashire. That would have required a substantial increase in population coverage—instead of which, of course, we have been faced by a demand from the Commission that we cut the population coverage by a third of a million.
I said earlier that we fought hard to secure our July proposals, but we should be clear that the Government do not have the final say in the matter. Under the European Community treaties the Commission has sole competence. Therefore, as my hon. Friend said, we cannot pay any regional state aid without an assisted areas map approved by the Commission. It was clear that the Commission would not approve our July proposals, and we have had to make changes accordingly.
The Government, however, are conscious of the needs and concerns of the people of east Lancashire. Assisted area status is but one part of a package of measures that the Government have put in place to meet regional and local needs.
My hon. Friend knows that when the Government came to power, we inherited an unco-ordinated, disjointed set of regional bodies. Regional activity on inward investment, supply chains, rural development, physical regeneration, and social and economic regeneration all took place in separate organisations. There was no overall strategy to bring together regional activity. We have addressed that problem.
We have devolved power to Scotland and Wales and set up the regional development agencies in England. Last October each RDA produced, with local partners, a strategy for improving the economic performance of its region. The strategies provide a framework for ensuring that all our regions share in Britain's growth. East Lancashire will benefit from the implementation of the north-west's regional strategy—"England's North West: A Strategy towards 2020"—with its work to improve the performance of sectors of continuing and growing importance to the region. Aerospace, for example, is one of the sectors specifically targeted.
Our strategy is not to set one area or region against another, but to use the policy instruments that we have available to make sure that all our regions are competitive and successful.
The framework provided by the regional development agencies, together with initiatives such as the new enterprise grant scheme, to which my hon. Friend referred; the strengthened provision of trade promotion and development services in partnership with local providers, through the formation of British Trade International; the £50 million regional innovation fund to provide support for business clusters; the £30 million phoenix fund; and the £10 million competitiveness development fund will ensure that all areas benefit from Britain's growth.
Our aim is to enable regions to meet the challenges of the new economy. Rather than throwing money at the symptoms, we must tackle the underlying causes, invest in skills and increase opportunities for enterprise. We are doing that.
Those policies are having an impact on the ground. Since the beginning of this year, the new enterprise grant scheme has supported investment of £575,000 in east Lancashire. Training and skills development is being supported through the East Lancashire training and enterprise council, and, from next year, by the learning and skills council. In addition, in June, the Government will announce objective 3 structural fund support for skills

and training, and publishing bidding guidance. Based on previous programme allocations, that is likely to mean about £250 million for the north-west, and I would expect east Lancashire to be at the forefront of the bids.
The funding will provide significant support for the Government's employability agenda. It will help people of all ages to get to work. It will also help firms and workers to adapt to new working conditions and thus compete more effectively in the global marketplace. In total, the areas of east Lancashire that we can no longer include in our assisted area proposals will continue to receive Government funding of nearly £40 million to regenerate the area and boost business.
I know that my hon. Friend and his constituents were also disappointed not to secure coverage under the objective 2 structural funds map. However, the Government, through hard negotiation in Europe, secured transitional funding for the areas that lost out. In the north-west, that means that more than £100 million of transitional funding will be available to assist areas such as east Lancashire. That funding is, of course, part of a comprehensive £10 billion package of European structural funding to boost industry and enterprise in the regions.
While I recognise the disappointment of my hon. Friend and the people of Burnley, Rossendale and Hyndburn that they are not included in the amended assisted areas map, I am confident that the amended proposals represent the best package that we can broker with the Commission within the constraints that it has now imposed.
For east Lancashire, we must work together to build on the area's many strengths, which my hon. Friend has highlighted over many years, to ensure a prosperous and vibrant future for the people and businesses of the area. I repeat my offer, which I made to my hon. Friend when he and his colleagues came to see me, to visit east Lancashire and discuss with him and with regional and local partners how we can secure the sort of future for east Lancashire that we all want.
Although I accept that my hon. Friend and his constituents are disappointed, I believe that we have done the best job. I stress that it is only one part of a much larger funding package for our regions, and I am sure that east Lancashire will take advantage of the other provisions that the Government will make available.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o ' clock.